RV10-Archive.digest.vol-kk

February 12, 2015 - March 24, 2015



      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438276#438276
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Geoff Combs" <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com>
Subject: Door seals - more questions than answers.
Date: Feb 12, 2015
Dan I would not use anything but the McMaster Carr door seal option. I would also use the 1/4" edge and build all your edges up to 1/4" with E glass. This will make the channel a little stronger again from what you removed for the McMaster seals. My doors seal airtight and water tight. This option takes a little more time but the results are well worth the effort. The Vans seals look like an afterthought. Also I have never had one come off after 5 years. I fly a lot of people and young eagles. FWIW Geoff Combs Aerosport -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Charrois Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:50 PM Subject: RV10-List: Door seals - more questions than answers. Hi everyone. I'm at the stage of choosing door seals and have somewhat stalled in the decision-making process, so I'm reaching out to those who've been there, in trying to make the best-informed decision. I've scoured the RV-10 Matronics email list for the past several years to see what people are doing, but still have what seems to be more questions than answers. I know that replacing Van's seals is a popular option. I guess the first thing to know when choosing an alternative is understanding exactly what we're trying to fix. My biggest question is probably - what is the biggest problem with them? I've read that the stock seals just don't "seal" well enough. Is this because of where the seal fits (into the channel)? Or due to the physical nature of the rubber seal? I notice that it quite easily "kinks", which would leave air gaps if this happens when mounted on the door. Also, the coil I have from Vans has lots of locations where the two opposite edges in the bulb are stuck together internally (kinks that have sat that way for years). They can probably be teased apart, but obviously, if this happens when it is on the door, the sealing factor is gone. Alternately, if the problems with Van's seal are due to the location of the seal, obviously changing to a seal that attaches differently makes sense. If due to kinking, perhap! s a different composition of seal? A popular option here seems to be McMaster-Carr's part number 1120A313 (also apparently the same as 1120A31), or 1120A411 - edge-grip seals with a rubber bulb. This gets installed along the door frame instead of the door, and requires the modification that the channel (gutter) along the door frame is cut back such that the inner curve of the channel is removed so that the mounting edge is effectively co-planar with the door. I know this is a popular option, but as I say, I want to make an informed decision. Though I'm sure it makes a finished look, I am a bit concerned that removing the inner curve of the channel reduces the structural integrity of the cabin top somewhat (it effectively removes one of the flanges if the channel were to be considered an I-beam). I also kind of like the existing gutter concept to the door frame minimizing the chance of water getting inside overhead. Also, considering that this concept puts the seal on the door frame, I wonder if it would ! be more easily damaged and/or dislodged by people getting in and out. On the other hand, car door seals tend to be this way, so maybe it's not a big deal. One thing I don't understand - those seals have a rubber bulb... in which case, how do they seal better than Van's which also have a similar bulb, or is it primarily the mounting difference that improves things? Another option that's been popular is that which was sold by rvtraining.com / Aviation Tech Products. This was a foam-based seal that went along the outer edge (lip) of the door. Since it didn't require modifications to the structural integrity of the door frame, I thought this was potentially appealing (plus, it feels as though a foam-based seal would be more sound-insulating than a rubber bulb). But I say "was" on purpose - I got in touch with them a few days ago, and as of December 2014, they closed Aviation Tech Products, don't have any seals left and don't know where else they may be obtained. So this exact option is out, unless someone has done something similar. On the other hand, I never quite understood how the seal would work effectively along the areas of the door where there was only a very small lip available, like along the bottom. Another option would be seal attached to the door that compressed against the existing flange of the door frame that curves back towards the door (the part cut off when using the aforementioned 1120A411 edge-grip seal). This could be something like McMaster part 1142A28, or even a simple adhesive-backed strip like 93745K23. If the problem with Van's seal is due to its composition, there are McMaster alternatives that have a similar form factor (and hence mounting) - like a purely foam version such as 93085K91, or even an intriguing "hybrid" rubber seal with a foam core (1141A4) that may combine the ruggedness of a rubber outer section like Van's with a foam core inside that "may" help prevent kinking and opposite sides of the bulb bonding together, if that in fact is the problem with Van's in the first place. To me this seems like the most straightforward improvement with minimal changes to what Van's intended, but I don't know if that would be "fixing" a problem with the Van's seals that may not be the big issue in the first place. Of course, I could just go and do what the majority are doing with regards to alternate seals if there is a majority, but I'm the sort who wants to make an informed a decision as possible. Any feedback anyone could give on the concept would be greatly appreciated - particularly from those who have gone down this decision tree in the past, I'd be very interested in hearing why you decided on using what you have. Then, if I decide to go with some variation of a McMaster seal, I have to tackle the next hurdle and see if I can get them to ship to Canada, which I've heard has been problematic in the past. But one problem at a time :-) Thanks! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Door seals - more questions than answers.
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2015
I installed my own on the door frame. I don't even remember where I got them. It took LOTS of work and rework to get them right. I did try the foam rubber from Aviation Tech Products and they did not work well at all. I agree with your concerns about grinding down the door frame to install the McMaster-Carr seals. However, they definitely look great. My biggest complaint with the Van's product is the appearance. Bill P. is right. They look cheap! However, knowing what I know now, I would install the Van's seals because they work fine, even if they don't look so good. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438279#438279 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2015
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Door seals - more questions than answers.
I too have only had the standard Van's seals for almost 1100 hours now. I think all of that kinking thing is a non-issue. It'll straighten out and seal and work well. I actually think that it may be the quietest and most airtight way to go. But if there is a "problem" with the original seals, it's that the door can be hard to close just because the seal is about as thick as you could put in that gap. The McMaster ones I've seen make the door have no resistance to closing and the thing just latches. I don't have any firsthand experience with anything but mine, and I know others like the McMaster, so nothing against going either way. I do think mine seal very tightly...I get no air or noise. I did get some initially up by the front door pins, but then got it sealed up. That seal fills the gap completely and doesn't allow much in the way of air to leak. I'm not sure what I'd do if I built another one. I'm inclined to say I'd stick with what I have, since it's been good. But I'd probably go ride with some friends who have the other and see if theirs leaks at all. If so, I'd definitely go with mine, but if not, I'd consider either. I do like the looks of the doors better with the seal on the door side though. I'd rather not have the black foam around the door hole. Honestly, if you do it right, I don't think you'll go wrong either way. Like you, I'd think that whatever you can do to be non-intrusive into the structure, would be the best approach, so if you go the other way, I'd cut the seal to fit the door channel, not the channel to fit the seal. Tim On 2/12/2015 4:40 PM, Gary wrote: > > I know that staying with the Vans seals is not the popular choice but I have been quite happy with them and I have a good seal all around > > I had the McMaster seals on my Glasair and they are not without their own problems. They shrink over time and leave a 1" gap at the joint. Additionally they are not water tight. The water seeps in around the clip. To make it water tight you must install the clip with silicone caulk. Plus all the grinding and building up on the lip. > > So, each has issues so pick your poison. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Door seals - more questions than answers.
From: Kevin Belue <kdb.rv10(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2015
I installed Van's seals and absolutely could not close the door. I pushed from the outside but it would not completely close. It all depends on how deep you set the door; since I wanted mine to be flush, I suppose it sets deeper than Van's. On Van's factory plane it works great, but not on mine. So, I took Van's seals off and installed the McMaster- Carr seal. It was a lot of work, but it completely seals and the door closes just right. If I were building another plane, that's what I'd use without another thought..... Kevin Belue Sent from my iPhone On Feb 12, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > Hi everyone. I'm at the stage of choosing door seals and have somewhat stalled in the decision-making process, so I'm reaching out to those who've been there, in trying to make the best-informed decision. I've scoured the RV-10 Matronics email list for the past several years to see what people are doing, but still have what seems to be more questions than answers. > > I know that replacing Van's seals is a popular option. I guess the first thing to know when choosing an alternative is understanding exactly what we're trying to fix. My biggest question is probably - what is the biggest problem with them? I've read that the stock seals just don't "seal" well enough. Is this because of where the seal fits (into the channel)? Or due to the physical nature of the rubber seal? I notice that it quite easily "kinks", which would leave air gaps if this happens when mounted on the door. Also, the coil I have from Vans has lots of locations where the two opposite edges in the bulb are stuck together internally (kinks that have sat that way for years). They can probably be teased apart, but obviously, if this happens when it is on the door, the sealing factor is gone. Alternately, if the problems with Van's seal are due to the location of the seal, obviously changing to a seal that attaches differently makes sense. If due to kinking, perhap! > s a different composition of seal? > > A popular option here seems to be McMaster-Carr's part number 1120A313 (also apparently the same as 1120A31), or 1120A411 - edge-grip seals with a rubber bulb. This gets installed along the door frame instead of the door, and requires the modification that the channel (gutter) along the door frame is cut back such that the inner curve of the channel is removed so that the mounting edge is effectively co-planar with the door. I know this is a popular option, but as I say, I want to make an informed decision. Though I'm sure it makes a finished look, I am a bit concerned that removing the inner curve of the channel reduces the structural integrity of the cabin top somewhat (it effectively removes one of the flanges if the channel were to be considered an I-beam). I also kind of like the existing gutter concept to the door frame minimizing the chance of water getting inside overhead. Also, considering that this concept puts the seal on the door frame, I wonder if it would ! > be more easily damaged and/or dislodged by people getting in and out. On the other hand, car door seals tend to be this way, so maybe it's not a big deal. One thing I don't understand - those seals have a rubber bulb... in which case, how do they seal better than Van's which also have a similar bulb, or is it primarily the mounting difference that improves things? > > Another option that's been popular is that which was sold by rvtraining.com / Aviation Tech Products. This was a foam-based seal that went along the outer edge (lip) of the door. Since it didn't require modifications to the structural integrity of the door frame, I thought this was potentially appealing (plus, it feels as though a foam-based seal would be more sound-insulating than a rubber bulb). But I say "was" on purpose - I got in touch with them a few days ago, and as of December 2014, they closed Aviation Tech Products, don't have any seals left and don't know where else they may be obtained. So this exact option is out, unless someone has done something similar. On the other hand, I never quite understood how the seal would work effectively along the areas of the door where there was only a very small lip available, like along the bottom. > > Another option would be seal attached to the door that compressed against the existing flange of the door frame that curves back towards the door (the part cut off when using the aforementioned 1120A411 edge-grip seal). This could be something like McMaster part 1142A28, or even a simple adhesive-backed strip like 93745K23. > > If the problem with Van's seal is due to its composition, there are McMaster alternatives that have a similar form factor (and hence mounting) - like a purely foam version such as 93085K91, or even an intriguing "hybrid" rubber seal with a foam core (1141A4) that may combine the ruggedness of a rubber outer section like Van's with a foam core inside that "may" help prevent kinking and opposite sides of the bulb bonding together, if that in fact is the problem with Van's in the first place. To me this seems like the most straightforward improvement with minimal changes to what Van's intended, but I don't know if that would be "fixing" a problem with the Van's seals that may not be the big issue in the first place. > > Of course, I could just go and do what the majority are doing with regards to alternate seals if there is a majority, but I'm the sort who wants to make an informed a decision as possible. Any feedback anyone could give on the concept would be greatly appreciated - particularly from those who have gone down this decision tree in the past, I'd be very interested in hearing why you decided on using what you have. Then, if I decide to go with some variation of a McMaster seal, I have to tackle the next hurdle and see if I can get them to ship to Canada, which I've heard has been problematic in the past. But one problem at a time :-) > > Thanks! Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Door seals - more questions than answers.
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Feb 12, 2015
Put me into the "Vans original" camp. Yes, they look cheap. Yes, after endless sanding and fitting it is dis-heartening to find you have to sand and fit more after the seals are on. My doors are a little tight to close, so extra attention is needed to make absolutely sure the aft pin is engaged. But I hear and feel no air leaks, no water leaks, I'm happy. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438286#438286 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2015
Subject: Re: Door seals - more questions than answers.
I have the simple foam backed strips. Pictures here: http://tinyurl.com/Post-regarding-door-seals My doors seal water and air tight. The best part is how the door closes--no effort at all, just push the handle down. I've replaced the seals once in 7 years. It takes an hour or so and cost was less than $20. Don't be dismayed if the door seems hard to close on the first try. Let it sit for a few hours and the foam takes as set at zero clearance. Then the doors open and close easily. --Dave On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > Hi everyone. I'm at the stage of choosing door seals and have somewhat > stalled in the decision-making process, so I'm reaching out to those who've > been there, in trying to make the best-informed decision. I've scoured the > RV-10 Matronics email list for the past several years to see what people > are doing, but still have what seems to be more questions than answers. > > I know that replacing Van's seals is a popular option. I guess the first > thing to know when choosing an alternative is understanding exactly what > we're trying to fix. My biggest question is probably - what is the biggest > problem with them? I've read that the stock seals just don't "seal" well > enough. Is this because of where the seal fits (into the channel)? Or due > to the physical nature of the rubber seal? I notice that it quite easily > "kinks", which would leave air gaps if this happens when mounted on the > door. Also, the coil I have from Vans has lots of locations where the two > opposite edges in the bulb are stuck together internally (kinks that have > sat that way for years). They can probably be teased apart, but obviously, > if this happens when it is on the door, the sealing factor is gone. > Alternately, if the problems with Van's seal are due to the location of the > seal, obviously changing to a seal that attaches differently makes sense. > If due to kinking, perhap! > s a different composition of seal? > > A popular option here seems to be McMaster-Carr's part number 1120A313 > (also apparently the same as 1120A31), or 1120A411 - edge-grip seals with a > rubber bulb. This gets installed along the door frame instead of the door, > and requires the modification that the channel (gutter) along the door > frame is cut back such that the inner curve of the channel is removed so > that the mounting edge is effectively co-planar with the door. I know this > is a popular option, but as I say, I want to make an informed decision. > Though I'm sure it makes a finished look, I am a bit concerned that > removing the inner curve of the channel reduces the structural integrity of > the cabin top somewhat (it effectively removes one of the flanges if the > channel were to be considered an I-beam). I also kind of like the existing > gutter concept to the door frame minimizing the chance of water getting > inside overhead. Also, considering that this concept puts the seal on the > door frame, I wonder if it would ! > be more easily damaged and/or dislodged by people getting in and out. On > the other hand, car door seals tend to be this way, so maybe it's not a big > deal. One thing I don't understand - those seals have a rubber bulb... in > which case, how do they seal better than Van's which also have a similar > bulb, or is it primarily the mounting difference that improves things? > > Another option that's been popular is that which was sold by > rvtraining.com / Aviation Tech Products. This was a foam-based seal that > went along the outer edge (lip) of the door. Since it didn't require > modifications to the structural integrity of the door frame, I thought this > was potentially appealing (plus, it feels as though a foam-based seal would > be more sound-insulating than a rubber bulb). But I say "was" on purpose - > I got in touch with them a few days ago, and as of December 2014, they > closed Aviation Tech Products, don't have any seals left and don't know > where else they may be obtained. So this exact option is out, unless > someone has done something similar. On the other hand, I never quite > understood how the seal would work effectively along the areas of the door > where there was only a very small lip available, like along the bottom. > > Another option would be seal attached to the door that compressed against > the existing flange of the door frame that curves back towards the door > (the part cut off when using the aforementioned 1120A411 edge-grip seal). > This could be something like McMaster part 1142A28, or even a simple > adhesive-backed strip like 93745K23. > > If the problem with Van's seal is due to its composition, there are > McMaster alternatives that have a similar form factor (and hence mounting) > - like a purely foam version such as 93085K91, or even an intriguing > "hybrid" rubber seal with a foam core (1141A4) that may combine the > ruggedness of a rubber outer section like Van's with a foam core inside > that "may" help prevent kinking and opposite sides of the bulb bonding > together, if that in fact is the problem with Van's in the first place. To > me this seems like the most straightforward improvement with minimal > changes to what Van's intended, but I don't know if that would be "fixing" > a problem with the Van's seals that may not be the big issue in the first > place. > > Of course, I could just go and do what the majority are doing with regards > to alternate seals if there is a majority, but I'm the sort who wants to > make an informed a decision as possible. Any feedback anyone could give on > the concept would be greatly appreciated - particularly from those who have > gone down this decision tree in the past, I'd be very interested in hearing > why you decided on using what you have. Then, if I decide to go with some > variation of a McMaster seal, I have to tackle the next hurdle and see if I > can get them to ship to Canada, which I've heard has been problematic in > the past. But one problem at a time :-) > > Thanks! Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2015
Subject: Re: Door seals - more questions than answers.
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Another option that I haven't heard mentioned. www.aircraftdoorseals.com Similar to what was previously offered by rvtraining.com, however, uses a proprietary foam that compresses as much as needed and mostly stays compressed after first 24 hours. I have their product on my Mooney, and it works quite well. I believe they will sell you whatever length you need. Not cheap. On certified plane kit is typically $130 for door seal. Don't know if they discount for experimental. On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > Put me into the "Vans original" camp. > Yes, they look cheap. > Yes, after endless sanding and fitting it is dis-heartening to find you > have to sand and fit more after the seals are on. > My doors are a little tight to close, so extra attention is needed to make > absolutely sure the aft pin is engaged. > But I hear and feel no air leaks, no water leaks, I'm happy. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438286#438286 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Door seals - more questions than answers.
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Date: Feb 13, 2015
> Hi everyone. I'm at the stage of choosing door seals and have somewhat stalled in the decision-making process, so I'm reaching out to those who've been there, in trying to make the best-informed decision. I've scoured the RV-10 Matronics email list for the past several years to see what people are doing, but still have what seems to be more questions than answers. > Thanks, everyone, for your incredibly useful feedback with regards to my query about door seals. Like most other things in homebuilding, there are lots of different ways to do things, all with good and compelling reasons to choose them. One thing that did surprise me is how many people commented on continuing to use Van's original seals - from past comments here, it seemed that everybody was changing out their seals. But I guess, a lot of discussion here naturally tends to where we deviate from the plans as opposed to where we follow them - there's more to talk about :-) In any case, I feel like I'm going into this particular decision with a lot more information than I had before. Thanks again! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rear Aft Case Baffle Modification to Enable More Airflow Around
No. 5 Cylinder Fins
From: Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Feb 15, 2015
Could anyone please indicate if they have modified the Right Aft Case Baffle (CB-1007A) to enable more airflow around the fins of the right rearmost cyl inder head fins? The No. 5 cylinder head fins are very shallow where they butt up against the Right Aft Case Baffle and was thinking of modifying the case baffle to enab le more airflow around the cylinder fins. A friend has conducted this modification on his RV-6 and has reported reduce d rearmost cylinder head temperatures. As per Tim Olsons advice I am also filing out the cooling gaps between the f ins on each cylinder near the spark plugs. After shining a torch down there , some of the fins are just showing an air gap due to the casting flash. If you've also done this, is there an easier way to do this compared to using a very narrow flat file? Warm regards Patrick > > > > > > >

      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rear Aft Case Baffle Modification to Enable More Airflow
Around No. 5 Cylinder Fins
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2015
I did this last summer and it took me awhile, but a small file is the only way I know how to finish the filings smooth. I did use a long #30 bit to help remove some of the mass. I had several fins that were almost completely block. I also placed a couple washers on the screw that goes into the aft side of #5 cylinder. This helped quite a bit as well by creating a small gap between the cylinder and the baffle. Bob Sent from my iPad > On Feb 15, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: > > Could anyone please indicate if they have modified the Right Aft Case Baffle (CB-1007A) to enable more airflow around the fins of the right rearmost cylinder head fins? > > The No. 5 cylinder head fins are very shallow where they butt up against the Right Aft Case Baffle and was thinking of modifying the case baffle to enable more airflow around the cylinder fins. > A friend has conducted this modification on his RV-6 and has reported reduced rearmost cylinder head temperatures. > > As per Tim Olsons advice I am also filing out the cooling gaps between the fins on each cylinder near the spark plugs. After shining a torch down there, some of the fins are just showing an air gap due to the casting flash. If you've also done this, is there an easier way to do this compared to using a very narrow flat file? > > Warm regards > > Patrick > > >

      > 
      > 
      > 
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rear Aft Case Baffle Modification to Enable More Airflow
Around No. 5 Cylinder Fins
From: Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Feb 15, 2015
Bob Did you notice and change (i.e. reduction in CHT on #5) after filing out and enlarging the fin holes and adding the washer? I'm thinking of modifying the baffle itself to allow more air to flow around the aft side of the #5 cylinder. Warm regards Patrick > On 15 Feb 2015, at 21:22, Bob Leffler wrote: > > > I did this last summer and it took me awhile, but a small file is the only way I know how to finish the filings smooth. I did use a long #30 bit to help remove some of the mass. I had several fins that were almost completely block. > > I also placed a couple washers on the screw that goes into the aft side of #5 cylinder. This helped quite a bit as well by creating a small gap between the cylinder and the baffle. > > Bob > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Feb 15, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: >> >> Could anyone please indicate if they have modified the Right Aft Case Baffle (CB-1007A) to enable more airflow around the fins of the right rearmost cylinder head fins? >> >> The No. 5 cylinder head fins are very shallow where they butt up against the Right Aft Case Baffle and was thinking of modifying the case baffle to enable more airflow around the cylinder fins. >> A friend has conducted this modification on his RV-6 and has reported reduced rearmost cylinder head temperatures. >> >> As per Tim Olsons advice I am also filing out the cooling gaps between the fins on each cylinder near the spark plugs. After shining a torch down there, some of the fins are just showing an air gap due to the casting flash. If you've also done this, is there an easier way to do this compared to using a very narrow flat file? >> >> Warm regards >> >> Patrick >> >> >>

      >> 
      >> 
      >> 
> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rear Aft Case Baffle Modification to Enable More Airflow
Around No. 5 Cylinder Fins
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2015
Most definitely! I think the drop was about 10f, but I would have to look at my logs to get the precise drop. It went from being one of the hottest, to being one of the coolest. Bob Sent from my iPad > On Feb 15, 2015, at 6:40 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: > > > Bob > > Did you notice and change (i.e. reduction in CHT on #5) after filing out and enlarging the fin holes and adding the washer? > > I'm thinking of modifying the baffle itself to allow more air to flow around the aft side of the #5 cylinder. > > Warm regards > > Patrick > >> On 15 Feb 2015, at 21:22, Bob Leffler wrote: >> >> >> I did this last summer and it took me awhile, but a small file is the only way I know how to finish the filings smooth. I did use a long #30 bit to help remove some of the mass. I had several fins that were almost completely block. >> >> I also placed a couple washers on the screw that goes into the aft side of #5 cylinder. This helped quite a bit as well by creating a small gap between the cylinder and the baffle. >> >> Bob >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On Feb 15, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: >>> >>> Could anyone please indicate if they have modified the Right Aft Case Baffle (CB-1007A) to enable more airflow around the fins of the right rearmost cylinder head fins? >>> >>> The No. 5 cylinder head fins are very shallow where they butt up against the Right Aft Case Baffle and was thinking of modifying the case baffle to enable more airflow around the cylinder fins. >>> A friend has conducted this modification on his RV-6 and has reported reduced rearmost cylinder head temperatures. >>> >>> As per Tim Olsons advice I am also filing out the cooling gaps between the fins on each cylinder near the spark plugs. After shining a torch down there, some of the fins are just showing an air gap due to the casting flash. If you've also done this, is there an easier way to do this compared to using a very narrow flat file? >>> >>> Warm regards >>> >>> Patrick >>> >>> >>>

      >>> 
      >>> 
      >>> 
> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net>
Subject: Re: Rear Aft Case Baffle Modification to Enable More Airflow
Around No. 5 Cylinder Fins
Date: Feb 15, 2015
Adding a couple washers behind #5 (or behind #3 on a 4 cylinder engine) is a pretty standard RV trick. It definitely reduces CHT on that cylinder. I learned it on my RV-4, and did it again on my RV-10. -Mike Kraus Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 15, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: > > Could anyone please indicate if they have modified the Right Aft Case Baffle (CB-1007A) to enable more airflow around the fins of the right rearmost cylinder head fins? > > The No. 5 cylinder head fins are very shallow where they butt up against the Right Aft Case Baffle and was thinking of modifying the case baffle to enable more airflow around the cylinder fins. > A friend has conducted this modification on his RV-6 and has reported reduced rearmost cylinder head temperatures. > > As per Tim Olsons advice I am also filing out the cooling gaps between the fins on each cylinder near the spark plugs. After shining a torch down there, some of the fins are just showing an air gap due to the casting flash. If you've also done this, is there an easier way to do this compared to using a very narrow flat file? > > Warm regards > > Patrick > > >

      > 
      > 
      > 
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rear Aft Case Baffle Modification to Enable More Airflow
Aro
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Feb 15, 2015
To really fix it you need to increase the airflow behind the #5 cylinder. Ultimately the only way I was able to get #5 in line with the rest of the cylinders was to trim the front dams to around 1/3 of their original height and then to modify the rear baffle by extending the stock slit to come up further on the baffle and allow the straightening of the top bend to obtain a 1/8th inch gap behind the #5 cylinder. I used RTV to fill in the gap created by the mod. I ordered a new baffle piece to modify and install at the next annual to eliminate the RTV. Below is the best photo I can find. I did not file any of the fins, I just made sure there were no leaks. My CHT will rarely get to 400 in a climb unless its over 90 degrees OAT., and that's only in an extended full throttle climb. I typically climb out at 120kts. -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438365#438365 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_2898_158.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_2898_154.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New (Free) Aviation App
From: "gbrasch" <gmbrasch(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2015
Wanted to update the list with the following, the Airport Courtesy Car app as of this date has over 1300 listings nationwide with over 5000 pilots that have downloaded the app. It continues to be covered by major publications. Since AvWeb covered it and AOPA Pilot magazine in the February issue, it has most recently been favored by G.A. News. Also I can now upload pictures of your favorite crew cars to the state listings, so email those pictures to me at airportcars101(at)gmail.com. And keep those entries coming! -------- Glenn Brasch RV-9A Flying 1952 Piper Tri-Pacer Medevac Helicopter Pilot (Ret) Tucson, Arizona Owner, www.RVairspace.com and "Airport Courtesy Cars" Smart Phone App www.RVairspace.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438397#438397 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2015
Subject: Re: New (Free) Aviation App
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Glenn, Any chance you might port this to the web or to a Windoze platform? There are a few of us that don't use IOS or Android devices, still. On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:01 PM, gbrasch wrote: > > Wanted to update the list with the following, the Airport Courtesy Car app > as of this date has over 1300 listings nationwide with over 5000 pilots > that have downloaded the app. It continues to be covered by major > publications. Since AvWeb covered it and AOPA Pilot magazine in the > February issue, it has most recently been favored by G.A. News. Also I can > now upload pictures of your favorite crew cars to the state listings, so > email those pictures to me at airportcars101(at)gmail.com. And keep those > entries coming! > > -------- > Glenn Brasch > RV-9A Flying > 1952 Piper Tri-Pacer > Medevac Helicopter Pilot (Ret) > Tucson, Arizona > Owner, www.RVairspace.com and "Airport Courtesy Cars" Smart > Phone App > www.RVairspace.com > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438397#438397 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New (Free) Aviation App
From: "gbrasch" <gmbrasch(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2015
No Kelly, not at this time. The current formats are taking up all of my time, this little project turned into a beast. Sorry. Glenn -------- Glenn Brasch RV-9A Flying 1952 Piper Tri-Pacer Medevac Helicopter Pilot (Ret) Tucson, Arizona Owner, www.RVairspace.com and "Airport Courtesy Cars" Smart Phone App www.RVairspace.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438417#438417 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2015
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: RV-10 Quadrant Mounting Hole Dimensions
Hey all, If there's anyone who has their RV-10 throttle quadrant not installed who could measure the spacing in both directions for the mounting holes on the top, I'm in need of the measurements. I'm going to have to modify the RV-14 a bit probably, as they haven't planned for a quadrant at this time, and I'm thinking I'll just use the RV-10 quadrant. I just need to see how much I'll have to shuffle things around to make it fit. Also, if you have the distance from the forward most (skinny end, not lever end) holes, to the furthest forward part of the quadrant, that would be good too, so I know how far it sticks up into the forward fuselage forward of the panel. The RV-14 has a goofy fuse box pillar (that I will also have to modify) in that area so I need to modify that as well. So I'm verifying fit. Thanks! Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2015
From: <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Australian RV builders
Touring the Perth area for 2 more days in wonderful Australia. Found Murray field (YMUL) but no home builders there. Then heard about Serpentine (YSEN) and it was like finding the crown jewels. One hard and 1 grass runway, almost a hundred hangars with lots of building/flying going on. There was not much happening Sunday afternoon but I got to meet 4 or 5 and see some amazing planes. I have a friend who is completing an RV-8 and I saw some great ideas for the cockpit. They told me a '10 was in the works but builder was not there. Don't miss this one if you have a chance to see it. Hate to leave Perth, wonderful beaches and great drivers (especially compared to Calif.) hoping to see a 10 in Sydney. BTW, I'd love to transplant Serpertine to Arizona, this field is exactly what grass roots aviation is all about. Albert Gardner N991RV RV-10 Yuma, AZ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2015
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: WTB: RV-10 Throttle Quadrant
Does anyone have a new Van's RV-10 throttle quadrant that they'd want to sell *without* the cables? Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2015
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: RV-10 Quadrant Mounting Hole Dimensions
Just circling back. I did get the info I needed. Tim On 2/16/2015 2:49 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > Hey all, > If there's anyone who has their RV-10 throttle quadrant > not installed who could measure the spacing > in both directions for the mounting holes on the top, > I'm in need of the measurements. > > I'm going to have to modify the RV-14 a bit probably, > as they haven't planned for a quadrant at this time, > and I'm thinking I'll just use the RV-10 quadrant. > I just need to see how much I'll have to shuffle things > around to make it fit. > > Also, if you have the distance from the forward > most (skinny end, not lever end) holes, to the > furthest forward part of the quadrant, that would > be good too, so I know how far it sticks up into > the forward fuselage forward of the panel. > The RV-14 has a goofy fuse box pillar (that I > will also have to modify) in that area so I need > to modify that as well. So I'm verifying fit. > > Thanks! > Tim > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Elevator counterweight
From: "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 18, 2015
I am installing the elevators, this is a kit I bought from someone who already had the lead weights bolted on and the fiberglass tips riveted on. When I went to install the elevator with the trim tab attached I expected to let go of the elevator and see it fall to full up position but instead it fell to full down elevator. It doesn't look like the weight had been cut, drilled or shaved in any way. Is this normal? Does the elevator need to balance to stay level by itself during initial install? With the pushrods hooked up there is enough resistance with the pitch servo to hold it where I put it. -------- Dave Ford RV6 for sale RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438486#438486 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Re: Elevator counterweight
Date: Feb 18, 2015
I don't remember the number, but there is a procedure for checking the balance (I think in the little notebook the is the beginning of the building plans). Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad > On Feb 18, 2015, at 7:00 PM, rvdave wrote: > > > I am installing the elevators, this is a kit I bought from someone who already had the lead weights bolted on and the fiberglass tips riveted on. When I went to install the elevator with the trim tab attached I expected to let go of the elevator and see it fall to full up position but instead it fell to full down elevator. It doesn't look like the weight had been cut, drilled or shaved in any way. Is this normal? Does the elevator need to balance to stay level by itself during initial install? With the pushrods hooked up there is enough resistance with the pitch servo to hold it where I put it. > > -------- > Dave Ford > RV6 for sale > RV10 building > Cadillac, MI > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438486#438486 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Elevator counterweight
From: "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 18, 2015
I think I do have that booklet at the hangar, I will look into that. -------- Dave Ford RV6 for sale RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438488#438488 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Elevator counterweight
I don't think you get the sheets on checking rigging and balance of the control surfaces until the finish kit. It would be a lot better if the info were on the plans at the end of the build of each control surface. I'm not all that inclined to remove the control surfaces yet again to check balance, when it will have to be done again when the plane is painted. On 2/18/2015 5:16 PM, Jesse Saint wrote: > > I don't remember the number, but there is a procedure for checking the balance (I think in the little notebook the is the beginning of the building plans). > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > 352-427-0285 > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Feb 18, 2015, at 7:00 PM, rvdave wrote: >> >> >> I am installing the elevators, this is a kit I bought from someone who already had the lead weights bolted on and the fiberglass tips riveted on. When I went to install the elevator with the trim tab attached I expected to let go of the elevator and see it fall to full up position but instead it fell to full down elevator. It doesn't look like the weight had been cut, drilled or shaved in any way. Is this normal? Does the elevator need to balance to stay level by itself during initial install? With the pushrods hooked up there is enough resistance with the pitch servo to hold it where I put it. >> >> -------- >> Dave Ford >> RV6 for sale >> RV10 building >> Cadillac, MI >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438486#438486 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Elevator counterweight
From: "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 18, 2015
Interesting.... I found this in the archives: Vans does have a spec for elevator balance. It can be found in their Final Inspection and Flight Test Document on Page 2. For the -10 it is 37.5 in/lbs Trailing Edge Heavy. The factory can tell you how to rig the appropriate test equipment... John Hasbrouck #40264 [quote][b] Actually the equipment needed for checking the counterbalances is quite simple. For the elevators you need a rod attached to the elevators extending forward to a point 37.5 inches from the hinge centerline with a 1 lb weight attached at that point. ( 37.5 in/lb ). This is with both elevators attached, the trim in place and the tips on. If your choose to pop rivet the tips on you should probably wait until the final balance is done. ( Didn't tell us that in the plans did they? I used #4 screws and nutplates for mine. ) Adjust counterweights so the elevators rest trailing edge low. Any other builders who want to correct or expand on the above procedure please do so. I'd appreciate constructive advise particularly from previous RVers. BTW. The old -6 plans called for the builder to melt lead ingots into a mould to form the counterweights. Boy are we spoiled!! John Hasbrouck -------- Dave Ford RV6 for sale RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438490#438490 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Elevator counterweight
That assumes that the rod could be attached exactly at the hinge point. Or you can measure the distance from the hinge point to the trailing edge. With the hinge bolts on a knife edge, place a scale under the trailing edge to measure the weight there times the distance. I'm curious as to how many of the flying RV-10s were checked for flight control balance before first flight, and if so, how much weight adjustment was needed, if any. On 2/18/2015 8:31 PM, rvdave wrote: > > Interesting.... I found this in the archives: > > Vans does have a spec for elevator balance. It can be found in their Final Inspection and Flight Test Document on Page 2. For the -10 it is 37.5 in/lbs Trailing Edge Heavy. The factory can tell you how to rig the appropriate test equipment... > > John Hasbrouck > #40264 > [quote][b] > > Actually the equipment needed for checking the counterbalances is quite > simple. For the elevators you need a rod attached to the elevators > extending forward to a point 37.5 inches from the hinge centerline with a 1 > lb weight attached at that point. ( 37.5 in/lb ). This is with both > elevators attached, the trim in place and the tips on. If your choose to > pop rivet the tips on you should probably wait until the final balance is > done. ( Didn't tell us that in the plans did they? I used #4 screws and > nutplates for mine. ) Adjust counterweights so the elevators rest trailing > edge low. Any other builders who want to correct or expand on the above > procedure please do so. I'd appreciate constructive advise particularly > from previous RVers. BTW. The old -6 plans called for the builder to melt > lead ingots into a mould to form the counterweights. Boy are we spoiled!! > John Hasbrouck > > -------- > Dave Ford > RV6 for sale > RV10 building > Cadillac, MI > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438490#438490 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Re: Elevator counterweight
Date: Feb 18, 2015
You could also do double the weight at half the distance, etc. figuring the amount of weight to put on top of both counterbalance arms would be my preference. 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 Feb 18, 2015, at 10:31 PM, rvdave wrote: > > > Interesting.... I found this in the archives: > > Vans does have a spec for elevator balance. It can be found in their Final Inspection and Flight Test Document on Page 2. For the -10 it is 37.5 in/lbs Trailing Edge Heavy. The factory can tell you how to rig the appropriate test equipment... > > John Hasbrouck > #40264 > [quote][b] > > Actually the equipment needed for checking the counterbalances is quite > simple. For the elevators you need a rod attached to the elevators > extending forward to a point 37.5 inches from the hinge centerline with a 1 > lb weight attached at that point. ( 37.5 in/lb ). This is with both > elevators attached, the trim in place and the tips on. If your choose to > pop rivet the tips on you should probably wait until the final balance is > done. ( Didn't tell us that in the plans did they? I used #4 screws and > nutplates for mine. ) Adjust counterweights so the elevators rest trailing > edge low. Any other builders who want to correct or expand on the above > procedure please do so. I'd appreciate constructive advise particularly > from previous RVers. BTW. The old -6 plans called for the builder to melt > lead ingots into a mould to form the counterweights. Boy are we spoiled!! > John Hasbrouck > > -------- > Dave Ford > RV6 for sale > RV10 building > Cadillac, MI > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438490#438490 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Re: Elevator counterweight
Date: Feb 18, 2015
You could also do double the weight at half the distance, etc. figuring the amount of weight to put on top of both counterbalance arms would be my preference. 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 Feb 18, 2015, at 10:31 PM, rvdave wrote: > > > Interesting.... I found this in the archives: > > Vans does have a spec for elevator balance. It can be found in their Final Inspection and Flight Test Document on Page 2. For the -10 it is 37.5 in/lbs Trailing Edge Heavy. The factory can tell you how to rig the appropriate test equipment... > > John Hasbrouck > #40264 > [quote][b] > > Actually the equipment needed for checking the counterbalances is quite > simple. For the elevators you need a rod attached to the elevators > extending forward to a point 37.5 inches from the hinge centerline with a 1 > lb weight attached at that point. ( 37.5 in/lb ). This is with both > elevators attached, the trim in place and the tips on. If your choose to > pop rivet the tips on you should probably wait until the final balance is > done. ( Didn't tell us that in the plans did they? I used #4 screws and > nutplates for mine. ) Adjust counterweights so the elevators rest trailing > edge low. Any other builders who want to correct or expand on the above > procedure please do so. I'd appreciate constructive advise particularly > from previous RVers. BTW. The old -6 plans called for the builder to melt > lead ingots into a mould to form the counterweights. Boy are we spoiled!! > John Hasbrouck > > -------- > Dave Ford > RV6 for sale > RV10 building > Cadillac, MI > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438490#438490 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Elevator counterweight
From: "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 19, 2015
Spoke with Ken at Vans this morning, his view is-- that is normal that the stock Vans lead counterweight is enough for a standard build standard operated 10 and that the elevator would float down to full down elevator at install with the trim tab attached. His only concern was flutter from either too much bondo or similar product aft of hinge line, or extreme altitude or speed beyond Vans engineered ideals. He left it with the thought that I already had the solution but was looking for a problem. Not sure what to think regarding any adjustment or balancing now. -------- Dave Ford RV6 for sale RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438506#438506 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Elevator counterweight
From: Gary <speckter(at)comcast.net>
Date: Feb 19, 2015
Build on > On Feb 19, 2015, at 9:50 AM, rvdave wrote: > > > Spoke with Ken at Vans this morning, his view is-- that is normal that the stock Vans lead counterweight is enough for a standard build standard operated 10 and that the elevator would float down to full down elevator at install with the trim tab attached. His only concern was flutter from either too much bondo or similar product aft of hinge line, or extreme altitude or speed beyond Vans engineered ideals. He left it with the thought that I already had the solution but was looking for a problem. > Not sure what to think regarding any adjustment or balancing now. > > -------- > Dave Ford > RV6 for sale > RV10 building > Cadillac, MI > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438506#438506 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: PC680 vs PC925
From: "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2015
I know theses are both good batteries that some are using. Obviously the 925 is much better for starting but wondering if anyone has experience using the 680 for starting? I've been using one on a 4 cyl Lycoming with no problem but wondering about the 6 cyl? I just did some testing on a Chevy van 6 cyl I have that needed a new battery, I have an older 10 year old 680 battery I had on the bench for shop projects I decided to try. It does start my van in the winter cold but marginally because although it will turn over the engine adequately the clock will also reset to 12 o'clock sometimes, so I know this is marginal but may be attributed to the 10 year plus life. So I ordered a 925 from amazon got a great deal, free freight and put in in my van to check it. What a noticeable cranking difference--with authority! Recently with this cold snap in Mi had a minus 27 deg morning and there was no hesitation with the 925 starting the van. Sold on the 925 as very capable, but interested in the weight savings and I may have to get another new 680 to do the same test but thought I'd check others' experience with the 680 for starting. Anyone with experience? -------- Dave Ford RV6 for sale RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438635#438635 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
Date: Feb 24, 2015
There are folks running both successfully. My system is dual batt with dual alts and have a 680 on both. However I have a contractor that will allow me to bind them together in parallel if needed. With that setup I can get redundancy, 1360 for cold starting if required, and a backup starting battery in the event I show up to the hangar and have a dead primary battery. My first engine start hasn't occurred yet, but I'm not worried about the 680 doing it based on other people's success with it in the -10. I only point this out in case you happen to be running a dual-dual system. If I were single battery though and in a cold climate I'd have a hard time turning my back on the 925 with all the lifting power the -10 provides. Phil Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 23, 2015, at 11:19 PM, rvdave wrote: > > > I know theses are both good batteries that some are using. Obviously the 925 is much better for starting but wondering if anyone has experience using the 680 for starting? I've been using one on a 4 cyl Lycoming with no problem but wondering about the 6 cyl? I just did some testing on a Chevy van 6 cyl I have that needed a new battery, I have an older 10 year old 680 battery I had on the bench for shop projects I decided to try. It does start my van in the winter cold but marginally because although it will turn over the engine adequately the clock will also reset to 12 o'clock sometimes, so I know this is marginal but may be attributed to the 10 year plus life. So I ordered a 925 from amazon got a great deal, free freight and put in in my van to check it. What a noticeable cranking difference--with authority! Recently with this cold snap in Mi had a minus 27 deg morning and there was no hesitation with the 925 starting the van. Sold on the 925 as very capable, but ! > interested in the weight savings and I may have to get another new 680 to do the same test but thought I'd check others' experience with the 680 for starting. Anyone with experience? > > -------- > Dave Ford > RV6 for sale > RV10 building > Cadillac, MI > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438635#438635 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2015
I have gone through two winters with a pair of 680s. They work like a champ. Most of the time, I just start off a single battery. I do have the capability, like Phil described, to put the batteries in parallel for more cranking power. With winter starts, I've found that the battery isn't the most critical item. For me, it's been oil temperature. I've got a Reiff cylinders and a sump heater. If I preheat the engine long enough to get to 60+ degrees, the engine starts right away. The colder the oil has been, the more blades it takes to start, which in turn requires more current to run the starter. I don't leave the heater on all the time and I can control it remotely via cell phone. Bob Sent from my iPad > On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:19 AM, rvdave wrote: > > > I know theses are both good batteries that some are using. Obviously the 925 is much better for starting but wondering if anyone has experience using the 680 for starting? I've been using one on a 4 cyl Lycoming with no problem but wondering about the 6 cyl? I just did some testing on a Chevy van 6 cyl I have that needed a new battery, I have an older 10 year old 680 battery I had on the bench for shop projects I decided to try. It does start my van in the winter cold but marginally because although it will turn over the engine adequately the clock will also reset to 12 o'clock sometimes, so I know this is marginal but may be attributed to the 10 year plus life. So I ordered a 925 from amazon got a great deal, free freight and put in in my van to check it. What a noticeable cranking difference--with authority! Recently with this cold snap in Mi had a minus 27 deg morning and there was no hesitation with the 925 starting the van. Sold on the 925 as very capable, but ! > interested in the weight savings and I may have to get another new 680 to do the same test but thought I'd check others' experience with the 680 for starting. Anyone with experience? > > -------- > Dave Ford > RV6 for sale > RV10 building > Cadillac, MI > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438635#438635 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2015
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
Plane flies better with wt in the back anyway.=C2- I started out 700+ hou rs ago with 2 680's, but now have one 680 and one 925.=C2- A lot depends on the compression of your engine, and where you live.=C2- Since it does get cold here, and I have 9.5:1 compression, the change was a good one.Don McDonald From: rvdave <rv610dave(at)gmail.com> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:19 PM Subject: RV10-List: PC680 vs PC925 I know theses are both good batteries that some are using.=C2- Obviously the 925 is much better for starting but wondering if anyone has experience using the 680 for starting?=C2- I've been using one on a 4 cyl Lycoming w ith no problem but wondering about the 6 cyl?=C2- I just did some testing on a Chevy van 6 cyl I have that needed a new battery, I have an older 10 year old 680 battery I had on the bench for shop projects I decided to try. =C2- It does start my van in the winter cold but marginally because altho ugh it will turn over the engine adequately the clock will also reset to 12 o'clock sometimes, so I know this is marginal but may be attributed to the 10 year plus life.=C2- So I ordered a 925 from amazon got a great deal, free freight and put in in my van to check it.=C2- What a noticeable cran king difference--with authority!=C2- Recently with this cold snap in Mi h ad a minus 27 deg morning and there was no hesitation with the 925 starting the van.=C2- Sold on the 925 as very capable, but ! interested in the weight savings and I may have to get another new 680 to do the same test but thought I'd check others' experience with the 680 for starting.=C2- Anyone with experience? -------- Dave Ford RV6 for sale RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438635#438635 S - - =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Curt's Groote" <cgroote1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2015
Subject: PC680 vs PC925
I replaced the 680 (never failed, but on occasion marginal) with a 925. If you want no worries, go the 925 route. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Feb 24, 2015
I have a 925 and a 680 in the back. Of course, neither work very well if you leave the battery switch on................. John -------- #40572 Phase One complete in 2011 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438646#438646 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
From: "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2015
> However I have a contractor that will allow me to bind them together in parallel if needed. > I do have the capability, like Phil described, to put the batteries in parallel for more cranking power. > Am considering a second contactor to connect the batteries for start if necessary. What is being used for the contactor switch? Using a start or master contactor? Are you connecting the second contactor via #2, 4, 6 wire(?) from battery, contactor to the primary buss or the primary starter contactor? > Plane flies better with wt in the back anyway I can foresee the way my wife packs vs me is about a 4:1 ratio on other trips so I'll have no problem with weight in the back, hence the firewall battery for cg and loading issues. :) -------- Dave Ford RV6 for sale RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438648#438648 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2015
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
On 2/24/2015 8:50 AM, rvdave wrote: snip Am considering a second contactor to connect the batteries for start if necessary. What is being used for the contactor switch? Using a start or master contactor? Are you connecting the second contactor via #2, 4, 6 wire(?) from battery, contactor to the primary buss or the primary starter contactor? *The master contactor is a long term 'on' device. The start contactor is a short term 'on' device. So, no matter where in your installation you put a contactor, use this guideline for choosing the proper one. IMHO, unless you plan on leaving the two batteries connected in parallel for any length of time, the start contactor is better, and #2 wire is best for any start application. Linn * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: taganster(at)gmail.com
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
Date: Feb 24, 2015
Dave, We have been flying our 10 for almost 2 years equipped with two 680's out of CLI in northern WI. The IO540 will start fine on one battery but during the colder months I start on two because things are a bit stiff at -10 below. We never have a problem with the EFIS dropping out. Unfortunately we will be heading home from Tuscon on Thursday back to below zero weather. Tom & Dawn Ganster N104TD CLI Sent from my iPad > On Feb 23, 2015, at 10:19 PM, rvdave wrote: > > > I know theses are both good batteries that some are using. Obviously the 925 is much better for starting but wondering if anyone has experience using the 680 for starting? I've been using one on a 4 cyl Lycoming with no problem but wondering about the 6 cyl? I just did some testing on a Chevy van 6 cyl I have that needed a new battery, I have an older 10 year old 680 battery I had on the bench for shop projects I decided to try. It does start my van in the winter cold but marginally because although it will turn over the engine adequately the clock will also reset to 12 o'clock sometimes, so I know this is marginal but may be attributed to the 10 year plus life. So I ordered a 925 from amazon got a great deal, free freight and put in in my van to check it. What a noticeable cranking difference--with authority! Recently with this cold snap in Mi had a minus 27 deg morning and there was no hesitation with the 925 starting the van. Sold on the 925 as very capable, but ! > interested in the weight savings and I may have to get another new 680 to do the same test but thought I'd check others' experience with the 680 for starting. Anyone with experience? > > -------- > Dave Ford > RV6 for sale > RV10 building > Cadillac, MI > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438635#438635 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2015
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Dave, B & C sells a pre-wired cross-feed contactor; meaning that it already has the diodes installed across the terminals. That is the contactor I used in my airplane. http://www.bandc.biz/prewiredcross-feedcontactor.aspx It was designed around the AeroElectric Z-14 basic architecture. If you don't have a copy of his book, it's worth the few dollars to purchase primarily for the diagrams. However those architecture diagrams are also available online. Z14 has two links because it spans a couple of .pdf pages. http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/ All of my connections between the batteries and between the batteries and the starter are #2. To clarify, my primary starting battery is #2 from the battery to the starter. My secondary battery is #2 across the cross-feed to my primary battery. And, because there is less load (no starting load) directly off my second buss, I run #8 forward from the secondary battery to the components it powers in the panel. Does that make sense? I thought I had a better photo of the battery area, but apparently I don't. Next time I'm out at the hangar I'll have to try and grab them. But here's what I have showing some of the finished wiring and also another showing the battery mount modifications. Both of the master contactors and the cross-feed contactors are in the back. The starter contactor is still on the firewall. Phil On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:50 AM, rvdave wrote: > > > > However I have a contractor that will allow me to bind them together in > parallel if needed. > > > > I do have the capability, like Phil described, to put the batteries > in parallel for more cranking power. > > > > Am considering a second contactor to connect the batteries for start if > necessary. What is being used for the contactor switch? Using a start or > master contactor? Are you connecting the second contactor via #2, 4, 6 > wire(?) from battery, contactor to the primary buss or the primary starter > contactor? > > > Plane flies better with wt in the back anyway > > > I can foresee the way my wife packs vs me is about a 4:1 ratio on other > trips so I'll have no problem with weight in the back, hence the firewall > battery for cg and loading issues. :) > > -------- > Dave Ford > RV6 for sale > RV10 building > Cadillac, MI > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438648#438648 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
From: Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2015
I have 2x680s in my plane. Starting on just one of them is almost impossible due to the high compression of the engine, so I tie both of mine together for the start. I would look to using the 925 if I were doing it all over again. grumpy N184jm > On Feb 23, 2015, at 11:19 PM, rvdave wrote: > > > I know theses are both good batteries that some are using. Obviously the 925 is much better for starting but wondering if anyone has experience using the 680 for starting? I've been using one on a 4 cyl Lycoming with no problem but wondering about the 6 cyl? I just did some testing on a Chevy van 6 cyl I have that needed a new battery, I have an older 10 year old 680 battery I had on the bench for shop projects I decided to try. It does start my van in the winter cold but marginally because although it will turn over the engine adequately the clock will also reset to 12 o'clock sometimes, so I know this is marginal but may be attributed to the 10 year plus life. So I ordered a 925 from amazon got a great deal, free freight and put in in my van to check it. What a noticeable cranking difference--with authority! Recently with this cold snap in Mi had a minus 27 deg morning and there was no hesitation with the 925 starting the van. Sold on the 925 as very capable, but ! > interested in the weight savings and I may have to get another new 680 to do the same test but thought I'd check others' experience with the 680 for starting. Anyone with experience? > > -------- > Dave Ford > RV6 for sale > RV10 building > Cadillac, MI > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438635#438635 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2015
From: David Clifford <davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
I have two 680's in my RV-10 with independent master switch's. One single 6 80 will turn the IO-540 over just fine. I usually use both though for start ing, then switch one Off after it starts. Charging both batteries hooked up together is not a good idea without using a battery isolator which I do no t have. It can lead to early battery failure. After I am airborne a few min utes, I swap to the battery off line to charge it back up. Both batteries a re mounted in the plans location and the added weight of the second battery helps out for the CG on my plane. David Clifford Howell, MI RV-10 N959RV ----- Original Message ----- From: "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:19:17 AM Subject: RV10-List: PC680 vs PC925 I know theses are both good batteries that some are using. Obviously the 92 5 is much better for starting but wondering if anyone has experience using the 680 for starting? I've been using one on a 4 cyl Lycoming with no probl em but wondering about the 6 cyl? I just did some testing on a Chevy van 6 cyl I have that needed a new battery, I have an older 10 year old 680 batte ry I had on the bench for shop projects I decided to try. It does start my van in the winter cold but marginally because although it will turn over th e engine adequately the clock will also reset to 12 o'clock sometimes, so I know this is marginal but may be attributed to the 10 year plus life. So I ordered a 925 from amazon got a great deal, free freight and put in in my van to check it. What a noticeable cranking difference--with authority! Rec ently with this cold snap in Mi had a minus 27 deg morning and there was no hesitation with the 925 starting the van. Sold on the 925 as very capable, but ! interested in the weight savings and I may have to get another new 680 to d o the same test but thought I'd check others' experience with the 680 for s tarting. Anyone with experience? -------- Dave Ford RV6 for sale RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438635#438635 =========== =========== =========== =========== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
Date: Feb 24, 2015
I'll have to disagree with any downside of having two batteries in parallel w ith a single alternator as a normal mode of operation. Side note - this is a common set up for some trucks. As all batteries have some internal resistance, charge rate is dependent on t erminal voltage (for typical alternator configuration). If more than one ba ttery is in parallel with the alternator, the resistance seen by the alterna tor is that of parallel resistors. For identical batteries this will be one half of a single battery internal resistance. As resistance seen by the al ternator drops, alternator current increases. As alternator current increas es, charge voltage will drop (alternator output voltage drops as alternator o utput current increases). For you engineers out there you might remember th e "house curve" to model load on machines operating in parallel. The only caveat I'll add is that the batteries should have similar chemistry . I've run two PC-625 in parallel with single alternator in an RV-8A for 13 ye ars and in the RV-10 for 3 years. Other than me killing one battery by leav ing that side master on, I've experience no battery degrade issues. I do ho wever change out one battery every two years - thus neither battery is older than four years. I have a pulled battery from 2004 that got a second life i n my lawn tractor and is still going strong. I prefer the PC-625 over the PC-680 for the following reasons: - 200 cold cranking amps versus 170 amps - 18 amp/hour rating versus 16 amp/hour - 13.2 pounds versus 15.4 pounds - I find the form factor easier to work with The true value of having two batteries for outweighs the increased battery c apacity aspect. If that is all you want then just get a bigger battery. If however you are looking for power distribution redundancy and "graceful deg rade" if a single component fails, then I recommend you look at the various s chemes out there that meet that objective. For those interested in what I d id please email me direct. Carl RV-10 N7ZK > On Feb 24, 2015, at 11:01 AM, David Clifford w rote: > > I have two 680's in my RV-10 with independent master switch's. One single 680 will turn the IO-540 over just fine. I usually use both though for sta rting, then switch one Off after it starts. Charging both batteries hooked u p together is not a good idea without using a battery isolator which I do no t have. ( It can lead to early battery failure. After I am airborne a few m inutes, I swap to the battery off line to charge it back up. Both batteries are mounted in the plans location and the added weight of the second batter y helps out for the CG on my plane. > > David Clifford > Howell, MI > > RV-10 > N959RV > > > From: "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:19:17 AM > Subject: RV10-List: PC680 vs PC925 > > > I know theses are both good batteries that some are using. Obviously the 9 25 is much better for starting but wondering if anyone has experience using t he 680 for starting? I've been using one on a 4 cyl Lycoming with no proble m but wondering about the 6 cyl? I just did some testing on a Chevy van 6 c yl I have that needed a new battery, I have an older 10 year old 680 battery I had on the bench for shop projects I decided to try. It does start my va n in the winter cold but marginally because although it will turn over the e ngine adequately the clock will also reset to 12 o'clock sometimes, so I kno w this is marginal but may be attributed to the 10 year plus life. So I ord ered a 925 from amazon got a great deal, free freight and put in in my van t o check it. What a noticeable cranking difference--with authority! Recent ly with this cold snap in Mi had a minus 27 deg morning and there was no hes itation with the 925 starting the van. Sold on the 925 as very capable, but ! > interested in the weight savings and I may have to get another new 680 to do the same test but thought I'd check others' experience with the 680 for s tarting. Anyone with experience? > > -------- > Dave Ford > RV6 for sale > RV10 building > Cadillac, MI > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438635#438635 > > > > > > 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: Feb 24, 2015
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
I too have a Bob Nuckolls Z-14 configured exactly as Phil describes below right down to cable sizes. Works great and I highly recommend this approach. Single battery starts with the 680 are okay but not confidence inspiring. It's not something I'd be comfortable depending on if there was a chance that I had to draw down the 680 for some reason before the start. I do have the light weight starter which others have pointed out is not the best for crisp starts of the IO540. However, with (2) 680s, I am totally confident that the engine will start independent of any pre-start activities. That's what I was after with the Z-14 and I got it. I initially operated by doing the engine start on one battery then cross linking the two batteries, alternators and buses once underway. My reasons were 1) avoiding rebooting of the (3) EFISes which ran on the other battery/bus and 2) having everything cross connected so that any electrical failure would occur without an immediate impact on my panel. After much back and forth with Nuckolls, he pointed out that this was bass ackwards. Instead I should start using both batteries to minimize the impact on the batteries (starting is probably the most stressful moments for the battery). And then after the start I should run with the two buses unlinked so that any failures would be made apparent when they occur. Linking the 2 buses would be part of the recovery from such a failure. Makes sense and I've been running that way ever since. Bill "watching the white stuff fall in NC!!??" Watson On 2/24/2015 10:01 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > Dave, > > B & C sells a pre-wired cross-feed contactor; meaning that it already > has the diodes installed across the terminals. That is the contactor > I used in my airplane. > http://www.bandc.biz/prewiredcross-feedcontactor.aspx > > It was designed around the AeroElectric Z-14 basic architecture. If > you don't have a copy of his book, it's worth the few dollars to > purchase primarily for the diagrams. However those architecture > diagrams are also available online. Z14 has two links because it > spans a couple of .pdf pages. > http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/ > > All of my connections between the batteries and between the batteries > and the starter are #2. To clarify, my primary starting battery is #2 > from the battery to the starter. My secondary battery is #2 across > the cross-feed to my primary battery. And, because there is less load > (no starting load) directly off my second buss, I run #8 forward from > the secondary battery to the components it powers in the panel. Does > that make sense? > > I thought I had a better photo of the battery area, but apparently I > don't. Next time I'm out at the hangar I'll have to try and grab > them. But here's what I have showing some of the finished wiring and > also another showing the battery mount modifications. Both of the > master contactors and the cross-feed contactors are in the back. The > starter contactor is still on the firewall. > > Phil > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:50 AM, rvdave > wrote: > > > > > > > However I have a contractor that will allow me to bind them > together in parallel if needed. > > > > I do have the capability, like Phil described, to put the > batteries in parallel for more cranking power. > > > > Am considering a second contactor to connect the batteries for > start if necessary. What is being used for the contactor switch? > Using a start or master contactor? Are you connecting the second > contactor via #2, 4, 6 wire(?) from battery, contactor to the > primary buss or the primary starter contactor? > > > Plane flies better with wt in the back anyway > > > I can foresee the way my wife packs vs me is about a 4:1 ratio on > other trips so I'll have no problem with weight in the back, hence > the firewall battery for cg and loading issues. :) > > -------- > Dave Ford > RV6 for sale > RV10 building > Cadillac, MI > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438648#438648 > > > ========== > -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 > ========== > > > * > > > * > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
Date: Feb 24, 2015
Bill brings up a point worth a bit of discussion. In the Z14 model, I can' t really see any situation where I would throw my cross-feed contractor in f light. I would always use it at start and then shut it off and likely never touch it under any circumstance. The theory is that if a component on one of the busses shorts I t should tri p a circuit breaker, but the buss should stay up and running. However if th e buss itself shorts and goes down, the last thing I want to do is throw the cross-feed and short the unaffected buss too. If that occurred I'd be flyi ng blind while I figured out what happened and once I figured it out I'd be d ealing with the time required for reboots to complete and possible calibrati on issues of rebooting inflight while in an unusual attitude (remember I'm f lying blind). The secret is to pay close attention to what equipment goes on which buss so you can handle a buss failure gracefully. Some of my equipment has dual 12v inputs and that equipment has one input from buss 1 and the other from buss 2. Other equipment with a single 12v input (that could be deemed critical o r really convenient to have) can be connected to each buss through a pair of diodes pointing in opposite directions. This will allow the electrons to fl ow off one of the busses and into the equipment without cross-feeding onto t he other buss. With some planning you can really build a very redundant electrical system a nd panel with very very little added complexity. Phil Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 24, 2015, at 4:30 PM, Bill Watson wrote: > > I too have a Bob Nuckolls Z-14 configured exactly as Phil describes below r ight down to cable sizes. Works great and I highly recommend this approach. > > Single battery starts with the 680 are okay but not confidence inspiring. I t's not something I'd be comfortable depending on if there was a chance that I had to draw down the 680 for some reason before the start. I do have the light weight starter which others have pointed out is not the best for cris p starts of the IO540. However, with (2) 680s, I am totally confident that t he engine will start independent of any pre-start activities. That's what I was after with the Z-14 and I got it. > > I initially operated by doing the engine start on one battery then cross l inking the two batteries, alternators and buses once underway. My reasons w ere 1) avoiding rebooting of the (3) EFISes which ran on the other battery/b us and 2) having everything cross connected so that any electrical failure w ould occur without an immediate impact on my panel. > > After much back and forth with Nuckolls, he pointed out that this was bass ackwards. Instead I should start using both batteries to minimize the impa ct on the batteries (starting is probably the most stressful moments for the battery). And then after the start I should run with the two buses unlinke d so that any failures would be made apparent when they occur. Linking the 2 buses would be part of the recovery from such a failure. Makes sense and I 've been running that way ever since. > > Bill "watching the white stuff fall in NC!!??" Watson > >> On 2/24/2015 10:01 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: >> Dave, >> >> B & C sells a pre-wired cross-feed contactor; meaning that it already has the diodes installed across the terminals. That is the contactor I used in my airplane. >> http://www.bandc.biz/prewiredcross-feedcontactor.aspx >> >> It was designed around the AeroElectric Z-14 basic architecture. If you don't have a copy of his book, it's worth the few dollars to purchase prima rily for the diagrams. However those architecture diagrams are also availab le online. Z14 has two links because it spans a couple of .pdf pages. >> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/ >> >> All of my connections between the batteries and between the batteries and the starter are #2. To clarify, my primary starting battery is #2 from the battery to the starter. My secondary battery is #2 across the cross-feed t o my primary battery. And, because there is less load (no starting load) di rectly off my second buss, I run #8 forward from the secondary battery to th e components it powers in the panel. Does that make sense? >> >> I thought I had a better photo of the battery area, but apparently I don' t. Next time I'm out at the hangar I'll have to try and grab them. But he re's what I have showing some of the finished wiring and also another showin g the battery mount modifications. Both of the master contactors and the cr oss-feed contactors are in the back. The starter contactor is still on the f irewall. >> >> Phil >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:50 AM, rvdave w rote: >>> >>> >>> > However I have a contractor that will allow me to bind them together i n parallel if needed. >>> >>> >>> > I do have the capability, like Phil described, to put the batteries in parallel for more cranking power. >>> > >>> >>> Am considering a second contactor to connect the batteries for start if n ecessary. What is being used for the contactor switch? Using a start or mas ter contactor? Are you connecting the second contactor via #2, 4, 6 wire(? ) from battery, contactor to the primary buss or the primary starter contact or? >>> >>> > Plane flies better with wt in the back anyway >>> >>> >>> I can foresee the way my wife packs vs me is about a 4:1 ratio on other t rips so I'll have no problem with weight in the back, hence the firewall bat tery for cg and loading issues. :) >>> >>> -------- >>> Dave Ford >>> RV6 for sale >>> RV10 building >>> Cadillac, MI >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Read this topic online here: >>> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438648#438648 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ========== >>> -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 >>> ========== >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> 02/24/15 >> > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
From: "nukeflyboy" <flymoore(at)charter.net>
Date: Feb 24, 2015
Phil, You didn't mention if starting with the X-feed closed (both batteries) causes the EFIS to shut down. This is the main reason I keep the 2 Z-14 busses separated on startup. Like your experience, a start on one 680 does not impress you, but usually works. For this reason I am contemplating replacing one with a 925. I have also had marginal reliability with the Odessey batteries lately, having to replace them more frequently than expected. -------- Dave Moore RV-6 flying RV-10 QB - flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438684#438684 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
Date: Feb 24, 2015
As I mentioned earlier, I haven't performed the first start yet so I can't put a stake in the ground with a definite claim. However I don't believe there will be any issues with reboots on the EFIS' at the time of start. The way the design lays out, the current should never be interrupted during a start. Phil Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:06 PM, nukeflyboy wrote: > > > Phil, > > You didn't mention if starting with the X-feed closed (both batteries) causes the EFIS to shut down. This is the main reason I keep the 2 Z-14 busses separated on startup. Like your experience, a start on one 680 does not impress you, but usually works. For this reason I am contemplating replacing one with a 925. > > I have also had marginal reliability with the Odessey batteries lately, having to replace them more frequently than expected. > > -------- > Dave Moore > RV-6 flying > RV-10 QB - flying > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438684#438684 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
From: "nukeflyboy" <flymoore(at)charter.net>
Date: Feb 24, 2015
While the battery still has amp-hours remaining during cranking, the voltage drops low enough that the EFIS will crash. On engine start you will want to see your engine monitor so reboots are a PITA. You will also have to restart your checklist, or re-enter anything else you have done (navigation, for example). I am sure it causes no harm to the EFIS (mine a G3X), but it does take 30 seconds or so to recover. For this reason you do not want to cross tie your batteries on start unless you have just about killed your starting battery. Needless to say, your EFIS needs to be on a different battery than the starting battery. -------- Dave Moore RV-6 flying RV-10 QB - flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438689#438689 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2015
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
On 2/24/2015 8:06 PM, nukeflyboy wrote: > > You didn't mention if starting with the X-feed closed (both batteries) causes the EFIS to shut down. This is the main reason I keep the 2 Z-14 busses separated on startup. Like your experience, a start on one 680 does not impress you, but usually works. For this reason I am contemplating replacing one with a 925. I have (3) GRT HX EFISs that come on with the master. They do not have a discrete switch or switches. Pre-start flight plan entry requires the G430 to be powered on as well. Initially, if I took more than 5 minutes to setup my flight plan and call clearance delivery on a cold day, when I did a linked start it was likely that my (3) EFISs would re-boot. It became obvious that having all (3) screens come up involved more of a load than I anticipated. An obvious solution would be adding individual switches which would allow only 1 to be brought online until after the start. But I've become accustomed to the EFISs being in 'always on' mode and I like the fact that they cannot be switched off inadvertently. What I did was add TCW's IPS (Intelligent Power Stabilizer) and connected it to the EFISs and the G430. This solved the problem. I now do all starts with both batteries linked with no reboots. > I have also had marginal reliability with the Odessey batteries lately, having to replace them more frequently than expected. > I've had some problems with battery life. One problem was clearly tied to the need for 'clock power' on the (3) EFISs. This tended to run the battery down if not flown regularly. When GRT started picking up the time from the GPS, disconnecting the clock power lines clearly had a positive effect on battery life. In my case, I think cold starting my IO-540 with the light wt starter on one 680 may be considered a bit abusive. That is, it may reduce its life. Nuckolls suggested as much and my experience so far is consistent with that. Using both batteries on all starts, I seem to be getting the performance and life I expect out of the 680s but I don't the data to confirm that yet. I've had to make some changes to get things to work the way I've wanted but at this point I'm very satisfied with 2 680s. Replacing one with a 925 seems like overkill to me. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2015
I look forward to seeing how it behaves. My G3X is backed up my a backup battery and my Dynon D6 has and integrated backup battery as well. I just don't see any possible way for them to blink. If they do, and can just keep the contactor or open during the start. My G3X is wired to both busses so buss 2 would keep it running. It will be interesting to see. The first engine start isn't too far away. Should be this spring or summer. Phil Sent from my iPad > On Feb 24, 2015, at 9:19 PM, nukeflyboy wrote: > > > While the battery still has amp-hours remaining during cranking, the voltage drops low enough that the EFIS will crash. On engine start you will want to see your engine monitor so reboots are a PITA. You will also have to restart your checklist, or re-enter anything else you have done (navigation, for example). I am sure it causes no harm to the EFIS (mine a G3X), but it does take 30 seconds or so to recover. For this reason you do not want to cross tie your batteries on start unless you have just about killed your starting battery. > > Needless to say, your EFIS needs to be on a different battery than the starting battery. > > -------- > Dave Moore > RV-6 flying > RV-10 QB - flying > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438689#438689 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2015
The TCW solutions are very helpful. I have the Battery Backup behind the G3X. If I deal with reboots, which I don't think will happen, the IPS would be a very elegant and fairly simple solution to add. There's some innovative stuff in their portfolio for real problems. Sent from my iPad > On Feb 24, 2015, at 9:25 PM, Bill Watson wrote: > > >> On 2/24/2015 8:06 PM, nukeflyboy wrote: >> >> You didn't mention if starting with the X-feed closed (both batteries) causes the EFIS to shut down. This is the main reason I keep the 2 Z-14 busses separated on startup. Like your experience, a start on one 680 does not impress you, but usually works. For this reason I am contemplating replacing one with a 925. > I have (3) GRT HX EFISs that come on with the master. They do not have a discrete switch or switches. Pre-start flight plan entry requires the G430 to be powered on as well. Initially, if I took more than 5 minutes to setup my flight plan and call clearance delivery on a cold day, when I did a linked start it was likely that my (3) EFISs would re-boot. > > It became obvious that having all (3) screens come up involved more of a load than I anticipated. An obvious solution would be adding individual switches which would allow only 1 to be brought online until after the start. But I've become accustomed to the EFISs being in 'always on' mode and I like the fact that they cannot be switched off inadvertently. > > What I did was add TCW's IPS (Intelligent Power Stabilizer) and connected it to the EFISs and the G430. This solved the problem. I now do all starts with both batteries linked with no reboots. >> I have also had marginal reliability with the Odessey batteries lately, having to replace them more frequently than expected. > I've had some problems with battery life. One problem was clearly tied to the need for 'clock power' on the (3) EFISs. This tended to run the battery down if not flown regularly. When GRT started picking up the time from the GPS, disconnecting the clock power lines clearly had a positive effect on battery life. > > In my case, I think cold starting my IO-540 with the light wt starter on one 680 may be considered a bit abusive. That is, it may reduce its life. Nuckolls suggested as much and my experience so far is consistent with that. Using both batteries on all starts, I seem to be getting the performance and life I expect out of the 680s but I don't the data to confirm that yet. > > I've had to make some changes to get things to work the way I've wanted but at this point I'm very satisfied with 2 680s. Replacing one with a 925 seems like overkill to me. > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 2015
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
On 2/24/2015 7:33 PM, Phillip Perry wrote: > Bill brings up a point worth a bit of discussion. In the Z14 model, > I can't really see any situation where I would throw my cross-feed > contractor in flight. I would always use it at start and then shut it > off and likely never touch it under any circumstance. > You are forgetting about the obvious one - a failed alternator. That's where the Z14 shines because it turns a battery endurance situation into a 'hit the switch and carry on'. But you know that. > The theory is that if a component on one of the busses shorts I t > should trip a circuit breaker, but the buss should stay up and > running. However if the buss itself shorts and goes down, the last > thing I want to do is throw the cross-feed and short the unaffected > buss too. If that occurred I'd be flying blind while I figured out > what happened and once I figured it out I'd be dealing with the time > required for reboots to complete and possible calibration issues of > rebooting inflight while in an unusual attitude (remember I'm flying > blind). I didn't consider a bus short a likely failure scenario... at least no more likely than shorting a unprotected fat cable. The installation of the wires and cables that make up my two buses is robust and durable enough for that not to be a likely type of failure. OTOH, any component may go belly up for a variety of reasons but they are all protected with fuses or a breaker. And I agree, there is no reason for bus linking in the case of a component failure or short. I've gone almost 100% fuses so a shorted component wouldn't normally even be reset. Generally speaking just as you suggested, there's no reason to ever link the buses in flight unless there is some indication of a charging problem (e.g. alternator failure). > > The secret is to pay close attention to what equipment goes on which > buss so you can handle a buss failure gracefully. Some of my equipment > has dual 12v inputs and that equipment has one input from buss 1 and > the other from buss 2. Other equipment with a single 12v input (that > could be deemed critical or really convenient to have) can be > connected to each buss through a pair of diodes pointing in opposite > directions. This will allow the electrons to flow off one of the > busses and into the equipment without cross-feeding onto the other buss. I took a slightly different approach with my GRT EFISs; they can have up to (3) 12v inputs and will automatically get power from the input producing the most. However, I've only hooked them up to one bus (all 3 inputs are linked to one bus for some physical redundancy and with no power on/off switch in the circuit to eliminate a point of failure). The reason I keep them on one bus is so I can control what battery is drawn down when they are powered on before engine start. I could add switches but that would add complexity and multiple additional points of failure. So I depend on the dual buses and the ability to link them as the way to provide redundant power to the EFISs. > > With some planning you can really build a very redundant electrical > system and panel with very very little added complexity. Agreed but it continues to be a learning experience for me. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
From: "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2015
I have a 925 in the back and I never have to worry about not having enough juice for starting. Less worry about additional contactors (and their power consumption) and other complexities too. The capacity is pretty similar to two 680s in case the alternator quits. For backup I have two 6V 12A batteries in series, under one of the flap torque tube covers. Stole that idea from Tim Olson. Tim has 4 of them though. I charge them with a marine charge controller: https://www.bluesea.com/products/7601/m-Series__Automatic_Charging_Relay_-_12_24V_DC_65A Lenny -------- Lenny N311LZ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438695#438695 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2015
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
Wonder why most of the people are so heavily looking at the engine monitor being up on start? On my Glastar I have in // to the EMS a pressure switch which comes alive I think with 25 or 30 psi, that linked to a LED shows me immediately on start up if the oil pressure comes up and it is a very cheap (and the only) backup for my EMS. And then my Dynon D10 EMS does take less then 10 sec to reboot on start up. Cheers Werner On 25.02.2015 04:19, nukeflyboy wrote: > ... On engine start you will want to see your engine monitor so reboots are a PITA. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Feb 25, 2015
I have a dual bus system with two alternators, a PC680 and PC925L. I manage the batteries using an automated charge relay. This device is manufactured by Blue Seas Technology. P/N 7611. The ACR monitors the charge voltage, battery voltage and charge current and will automatically connect or disconnect depending on the parameters. This system will never allow a dead battery, or shorted battery to be combine charged, which is extremely important with a dual battery system. This system will not combine the batteries for starting, and will only combine the batteries when the charging bus is greater than 13.5 volts. Either alternator and either side of the bus can be used to charge both batteries. I typically fly with only the main alternator field energized and treat the second alternator as a standby. The dual bus allows me plenty of time to get a clearance and enter flight plans, then start the engine on the 925 without any ill affect to the avionics. The 925 has plenty of juice to rapidly spin up the engine for starting. I have no experience with just the 680. -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438705#438705 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
Date: Feb 25, 2015
Yep - that is what I do. The panel comes up after engine start. While Dynon assured me the SkyView system is not at risk for engine start voltage transients, Garmin provided no such guarantee. The last damn thing I want is to have to engage Garmin again to fix the GTN-650. In any case, why expose these high price electronics to such transients if not needed? Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Werner Schneider Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 3:04 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: PC680 vs PC925 Wonder why most of the people are so heavily looking at the engine monitor being up on start? On my Glastar I have in // to the EMS a pressure switch which comes alive I think with 25 or 30 psi, that linked to a LED shows me immediately on start up if the oil pressure comes up and it is a very cheap (and the only) backup for my EMS. And then my Dynon D10 EMS does take less then 10 sec to reboot on start up. Cheers Werner On 25.02.2015 04:19, nukeflyboy wrote: > ... On engine start you will want to see your engine monitor so reboots are a PITA. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2015
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
You have a point, but the starting transient problem pretty much goes away when you add the reverse current diode across the master and start contactor coils. Also, modern electronics (should) have switching power supplies which are fairly immune to those reverse-current spikes. I put dual MGL Odyssey panels in my RV-10 (not flying yet) panel and each one has it's own backup battery ...... a sealed battery for that goes into exit lights. There isn't that much current draw for the panels themselves. Having said all that, I wouldn't want to risk a Garmin repair cost either!! Linn ..... mounting wheel pants On 2/25/2015 9:24 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > > Yep - that is what I do. The panel comes up after engine start. While > Dynon assured me the SkyView system is not at risk for engine start voltage > transients, Garmin provided no such guarantee. The last damn thing I want > is to have to engage Garmin again to fix the GTN-650. In any case, why > expose these high price electronics to such transients if not needed? > > Carl > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Werner Schneider > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 3:04 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: PC680 vs PC925 > > > Wonder why most of the people are so heavily looking at the engine monitor > being up on start? > On my Glastar I have in // to the EMS a pressure switch which comes alive I > think with 25 or 30 psi, that linked to a LED shows me immediately on start > up if the oil pressure comes up and it is a very cheap (and the only) backup > for my EMS. > > And then my Dynon D10 EMS does take less then 10 sec to reboot on start up. > > Cheers Werner > > On 25.02.2015 04:19, nukeflyboy wrote: >> ... On engine start you will want to see your engine monitor so reboots > are a PITA. > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
Well, I took what I perceive as a simpler route. One PC925L battery, a Dynon backup battery on each screen, and a separate switch for my GTN650 and my second Dynon screen. Mostly to minimize electrical load before start to a single screen. If I wanted the 650 to be on and stay on during start, I would put a TCW IBBS on it. I don't perceive much benefit from doing dual bus, dual battery, dual alternator systems as I don't intend to fly that much IFR. Not to mention my IFR flying started 35 yrs ago with two venturis to drive AN AH and DG, with single nav/com and single manually tuned ADF. No transponder, just bare bones. Not sure I will be able to handle no ADF, full Dynon Skyview EFIS with GTN650 and knowing exactly where I am on any chart. 8^) On 2/25/2015 7:24 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > > Yep - that is what I do. The panel comes up after engine start. While > Dynon assured me the SkyView system is not at risk for engine start voltage > transients, Garmin provided no such guarantee. The last damn thing I want > is to have to engage Garmin again to fix the GTN-650. In any case, why > expose these high price electronics to such transients if not needed? > > Carl > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Werner Schneider > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 3:04 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: PC680 vs PC925 > > > Wonder why most of the people are so heavily looking at the engine monitor > being up on start? > On my Glastar I have in // to the EMS a pressure switch which comes alive I > think with 25 or 30 psi, that linked to a LED shows me immediately on start > up if the oil pressure comes up and it is a very cheap (and the only) backup > for my EMS. > > And then my Dynon D10 EMS does take less then 10 sec to reboot on start up. > > Cheers Werner > > On 25.02.2015 04:19, nukeflyboy wrote: >> ... On engine start you will want to see your engine monitor so reboots > are a PITA. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
The problem during start is NOT transient spikes, especially of higher voltage. The problem is LOW voltage from the starter current draw. Most avionics today are rated for 8 - 32v because they have their own power supply controlling voltage to what the individual circuit boards need. 1960s avionics had first generation transistors and ICs that were very sensitive to low voltage and were easily fried by same. But the industry ASSUMED that there were high voltage spikes, so implemented avionics master switches. It solved the problem, without ever determining what the real failure mode was. On 2/25/2015 7:57 AM, Linn Walters wrote: > > You have a point, but the starting transient problem pretty much goes > away when you add the reverse current diode across the master and > start contactor coils. > Also, modern electronics (should) have switching power supplies which > are fairly immune to those reverse-current spikes. > I put dual MGL Odyssey panels in my RV-10 (not flying yet) panel and > each one has it's own backup battery ...... a sealed battery for that > goes into exit lights. > > There isn't that much current draw for the panels themselves. > > Having said all that, I wouldn't want to risk a Garmin repair cost > either!! > Linn ..... mounting wheel pants > > On 2/25/2015 9:24 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: >> >> >> Yep - that is what I do. The panel comes up after engine start. While >> Dynon assured me the SkyView system is not at risk for engine start >> voltage >> transients, Garmin provided no such guarantee. The last damn thing I >> want >> is to have to engage Garmin again to fix the GTN-650. In any case, why >> expose these high price electronics to such transients if not needed? >> >> Carl >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Werner >> Schneider >> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 3:04 AM >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: PC680 vs PC925 >> >> >> Wonder why most of the people are so heavily looking at the engine >> monitor >> being up on start? >> On my Glastar I have in // to the EMS a pressure switch which comes >> alive I >> think with 25 or 30 psi, that linked to a LED shows me immediately on >> start >> up if the oil pressure comes up and it is a very cheap (and the only) >> backup >> for my EMS. >> >> And then my Dynon D10 EMS does take less then 10 sec to reboot on >> start up. >> >> Cheers Werner >> >> On 25.02.2015 04:19, nukeflyboy wrote: >>> ... On engine start you will want to see your engine monitor so >>> reboots >> are a PITA. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2015
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
On 2/25/2015 1:12 AM, Lenny Iszak wrote: > > I have a 925 in the back and I never have to worry about not having enough juice for starting. ...and I don't think a single 680 is enough for an IO540 and the RV10. The 925 seems like the right battery for a single battery installation. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2015
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
Thanks Kelly ..... the transients part came from Carl's email. IMHO if your starter is drawing the voltage down to where the panels reset, I think you have either a bad (or too small .... CCA) battery or too small wiring to the starter ..... or both. OK, severe cold might do it ..... what's the CCA of a PCXXX battery at -10???? Like I said, a small, sealed Gel Cell battery as a backup will fix those 'brownouts'. I also see starting problems stemming from the use of the airframe as a ground return for the battery. I ran a #2 cable to the engine for a ground. Linn ..... mounting wheel pants On 2/25/2015 10:13 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > The problem during start is NOT transient spikes, especially of higher > voltage. The problem is LOW voltage from the starter current draw. > Most avionics today are rated for 8 - 32v because they have their own > power supply controlling voltage to what the individual circuit boards > need. > 1960s avionics had first generation transistors and ICs that were very > sensitive to low voltage and were easily fried by same. But the > industry ASSUMED that there were high voltage spikes, so implemented > avionics master switches. It solved the problem, without ever > determining what the real failure mode was. > > On 2/25/2015 7:57 AM, Linn Walters wrote: >> >> You have a point, but the starting transient problem pretty much goes >> away when you add the reverse current diode across the master and >> start contactor coils. >> Also, modern electronics (should) have switching power supplies which >> are fairly immune to those reverse-current spikes. >> I put dual MGL Odyssey panels in my RV-10 (not flying yet) panel and >> each one has it's own backup battery ...... a sealed battery for that >> goes into exit lights. >> >> There isn't that much current draw for the panels themselves. >> >> Having said all that, I wouldn't want to risk a Garmin repair cost >> either!! >> Linn ..... mounting wheel pants >> >> On 2/25/2015 9:24 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yep - that is what I do. The panel comes up after engine start. While >>> Dynon assured me the SkyView system is not at risk for engine start >>> voltage >>> transients, Garmin provided no such guarantee. The last damn thing >>> I want >>> is to have to engage Garmin again to fix the GTN-650. In any case, why >>> expose these high price electronics to such transients if not needed? >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Werner >>> Schneider >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 3:04 AM >>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: PC680 vs PC925 >>> >>> >>> Wonder why most of the people are so heavily looking at the engine >>> monitor >>> being up on start? >>> On my Glastar I have in // to the EMS a pressure switch which comes >>> alive I >>> think with 25 or 30 psi, that linked to a LED shows me immediately >>> on start >>> up if the oil pressure comes up and it is a very cheap (and the >>> only) backup >>> for my EMS. >>> >>> And then my Dynon D10 EMS does take less then 10 sec to reboot on >>> start up. >>> >>> Cheers Werner >>> >>> On 25.02.2015 04:19, nukeflyboy wrote: >>>> ... On engine start you will want to see your engine monitor so >>>> reboots >>> are a PITA. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2015
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
On 2/25/2015 11:51 AM, Flysrv10 wrote: > > I wonder why everyone is concerned over oil pressure at startup? If the plane behaved when it was shut down, why would it not at start up? I have to admit that I was never concerned about oil pressure at start-up until building and maintaining my own plane. In normal operations - no concerns. Right after an oil change, I like to look at the pressure gauge. After pulling and remounting the engine (for the nosewheel SB), I really needed to look at the gauge. A single, stupid no-oil pressure start would be $$$$$$ > > > I also wonder why everyone is making their system so complicated. A simple one battery, single alternator system works fine. Some built-in backup batteries for critical avionics can do the rest, no question. Some people put more robust systems in because they are running electronic ignition systems. I'm running dual mags. The dual bus/batt/alternator system (the Z-14 in my case) is very robust and capable and a bit more challenging to design and install. But it is simple to use and pretty much immune to unexpected or non-standard operations. My experiences flying IFR in my old Maule drove a lot of how I wanted the '10 to operate. The complexity actually makes it simpler to operate and more reliable. The main thing I was after was the ability to run the panel as needed before the start without concern for the subsequent engine start. That's SOP for me. But I've had a couple of experiences where sitting on the ground with the engine off and with the panel fired up was more than desirable - and knowing that I can still fire up the engine and go was a big deal. For example, post Katrina KNEW when there were no Nexrad terminals available in the temporary FBO building - waiting in the plane, in the rain, watching Nexrad and waiting for a break in the line of cells was the only way I could get out. Or sitting at Oshkosh waiting for the runway to open after an incident - run the engine for an hour+ and you will probably have to pull a plug or two. Shut down, watch the weather and listen to the radio ready to depart ASAP. Or sitting at a uncontrolled airport waiting for in IFR clearance for a departure into IMC - sometimes that wait can go on for a long time if there are incoming planes, best to shut down and monitor. Or sitting at a KEWR or KHPN when things are backed up and the airliners are being shown the penalty box (usually you just keep the engine running in these cases). I'm getting ready for my 2nd trip to the out islands of the Bahamas. Lose an alternator or have a cell short and you are stuck... nothing that $$$$ and days won't fix. I'd probably fly it out. The 2nd battery can be the poor pilot's APU. Nice, but certainly not required. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
I don't know what other EFIS brands are doing, but Dynon uses one Lithium rechargeable per screen, and the software carefully manages the recharge. It is not possible to recharge any other way than being installed and screen on. As for the airframe ground return, every Cessna and Piper and Mooney use airframe for ground return. On my Mooney it is just like the RV-10, with battery behind baggage compartment, and I have one of those wimpy Skytec flyweight starters that draws well over 200 amps to crank my 200 hp Lycoming. Works fine as long as all connections are clean and tight. #2 positive wire, and airframe ground. The only arena that you do NOT want to use airframe for ground is the electronics. I probably will add a ground strap from engine mount to firewall, as I do not like Van's design of using the engine mount itself as primary ground path. On 2/25/2015 11:28 AM, Linn Walters wrote: > > Like I said, a small, sealed Gel Cell battery as a backup will fix > those 'brownouts'. > I also see starting problems stemming from the use of the airframe as > a ground return for the battery. I ran a #2 cable to the engine for a > ground. > Linn ..... mounting wheel pants > > On 2/25/2015 10:13 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: >> >> The problem during start is NOT transient spikes, especially of >> higher voltage. The problem is LOW voltage from the starter current >> draw. >> Most avionics today are rated for 8 - 32v because they have their own >> power supply controlling voltage to what the individual circuit >> boards need. >> 1960s avionics had first generation transistors and ICs that were >> very sensitive to low voltage and were easily fried by same. But the >> industry ASSUMED that there were high voltage spikes, so implemented >> avionics master switches. It solved the problem, without ever >> determining what the real failure mode was. >> >> On 2/25/2015 7:57 AM, Linn Walters wrote: >>> >>> You have a point, but the starting transient problem pretty much >>> goes away when you add the reverse current diode across the master >>> and start contactor coils. >>> Also, modern electronics (should) have switching power supplies >>> which are fairly immune to those reverse-current spikes. >>> I put dual MGL Odyssey panels in my RV-10 (not flying yet) panel and >>> each one has it's own backup battery ...... a sealed battery for >>> that goes into exit lights. >>> >>> There isn't that much current draw for the panels themselves. >>> >>> Having said all that, I wouldn't want to risk a Garmin repair cost >>> either!! >>> Linn ..... mounting wheel pants >>> >>> On 2/25/2015 9:24 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Yep - that is what I do. The panel comes up after engine start. >>>> While >>>> Dynon assured me the SkyView system is not at risk for engine start >>>> voltage >>>> transients, Garmin provided no such guarantee. The last damn thing >>>> I want >>>> is to have to engage Garmin again to fix the GTN-650. In any case, >>>> why >>>> expose these high price electronics to such transients if not needed? >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >>>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Werner >>>> Schneider >>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 3:04 AM >>>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >>>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: PC680 vs PC925 >>>> >>>> >>>> Wonder why most of the people are so heavily looking at the engine >>>> monitor >>>> being up on start? >>>> On my Glastar I have in // to the EMS a pressure switch which comes >>>> alive I >>>> think with 25 or 30 psi, that linked to a LED shows me immediately >>>> on start >>>> up if the oil pressure comes up and it is a very cheap (and the >>>> only) backup >>>> for my EMS. >>>> >>>> And then my Dynon D10 EMS does take less then 10 sec to reboot on >>>> start up. >>>> >>>> Cheers Werner >>>> >>>> On 25.02.2015 04:19, nukeflyboy wrote: >>>>> ... On engine start you will want to see your engine monitor so >>>>> reboots >>>> are a PITA. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Feb 25, 2015
I hate the weight and cost of batteries. I went with a ground (piper style) plug instead of a second battery. Sure made it convenient during the build powered by a surplus car battery on the hangar floor. In my experience I've never been dead in the air ever, but been dead on the ground several times. Never in the -10, but I have had to jump someone else. We are all creatures of past experience (or reading exploits of others), but IMHO we sometimes way over complicate things. (Myself included). Sometimes adding more fail safe just creates more elements to fail. The best alternative to airline level redundancy is to not get positioned to where you need that level or simply take the airlines if things are that dicey. -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Flew May 10 2014 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438739#438739 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PC680 vs PC925
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 01, 2015
I use my 680 in the back to power the panel before and during startup. I still have the original starter on mine. I normally use my 925L for startup. Current draw on the #2 wire is 435 amps. If I start on both batteries, I get a little quicker start and my avionics does not restart. I have not measured voltage at starter during startup, but would imagine that my slick start maybe dropping out using just the 925L. I need to get that NL starter sitting on my bench overhauled and installed. I will remeasure current draw and post down the road. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438820#438820 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Elevator counterweight
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 01, 2015
Mine is factory original with no problems so far. Like above, build on. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438821#438821 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New (Free) Aviation App
From: "gbrasch" <gmbrasch(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 01, 2015
Now approaching 6000 pilots using the app with over 1350 listings, and a recent review on the EAA website. And in a feeble attempt to recoup my costs, I am now offering very reasonably priced ad's for aviation related businesses as I keep my word to keep this app free for pilots. If you or someone you know may be interested, please email me at airportcars101(at)gmail.com for rates. And please tell your FBO where you found them. Thank you. Glenn -------- Glenn Brasch RV-9A Flying 1952 Piper Tri-Pacer Medevac Helicopter Pilot (Ret) Tucson, Arizona Owner, www.RVairspace.com and "Airport Courtesy Cars" Smart Phone App www.RVairspace.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438823#438823 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Slime Fighter
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Mar 01, 2015
Hi I am wondering if anyone has any experience with the Slime Fighter air/oil separator. I have 9 hours on my new engine and am starting to see some thin oil smears on the belly. When I had my Subie, I used a "Homebuilders Engine Crankcase Oil Breather" but I am concerned that the inlet vent tube is a bit smaller than the hose used on an IO540. Any comments? Cheers Les C-GCWZ (flying again) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438862#438862 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 01, 2015
Subject: Re: Slime Fighter
Les, I think you'll see more oil on the belly during break-in than any other time. That might explain some of it. For my plane, if I run with more than 9 qts it pumps some out the breather. If I let the level float between 8 and 9 qts, the belly stays clean enough that it just takes a quick wipedown every 100 hours or so. I usually see a few drops dripped onto the exhaust pipe on preflight. --Dave On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:42 PM, kearney wrote: > > Hi > > I am wondering if anyone has any experience with the Slime Fighter air/oil > separator. I have 9 hours on my new engine and am starting to see some thin > oil smears on the belly. When I had my Subie, I used a "Homebuilders > Engine Crankcase Oil Breather" but I am concerned that the inlet vent tube > is a bit smaller than the hose used on an IO540. > > Any comments? > > Cheers > > Les > C-GCWZ (flying again) > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438862#438862 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 01, 2015
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Slime Fighter
First off, I'm not a fan of air/oil separators, especially those that recommend sending the 'captured' oil back into the engine so no, I don't have any experience with Slime Fighter. If you are having enough blow-by to cause concern, the air/oil separator is just a bandaid that hides a more serious problem. If you really want to put an air/oil separator on your engine then let the captured oil drain into a jar that you can empty. Once you look at that oil, you'll know why it shouldn't go back in your engine. Now to your situation .... you only have 9 hours on your engine and it's probably just starting to break in. I would expect some blow-by until the rings seat completely. Run your engine hard .... keeping an eye on CHTs ..... the higher the combustion pressures, the better the rings seat. This is not the time to baby your engine, but keep the CHTs in line with Lycomings recommendations. I wish I was having your issue ..... Linn .... working on gear stiffeners and wheel pants On 3/1/2015 8:42 PM, kearney wrote: > > Hi > > I am wondering if anyone has any experience with the Slime Fighter air/oil separator. I have 9 hours on my new engine and am starting to see some thin oil smears on the belly. When I had my Subie, I used a "Homebuilders Engine Crankcase Oil Breather" but I am concerned that the inlet vent tube is a bit smaller than the hose used on an IO540. > > Any comments? > > Cheers > > Les > C-GCWZ (flying again) > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438862#438862 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Slime Fighter
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Mar 01, 2015
Dave / Linn Thanks for the comments. I filled the BPE engine with 12 qts before first start per Barrett's recommendations. Much of that was the "pipeline fill" for the oil cooler and oil lines. After a couple of ground runs I had a tad under 10 qts on the dipstick. After the first flight I added another qt as the oil seemed down. I am not sure what the engine "likes" oil wise but have been tracking it after each flight. It will be interesting to see where it stabilizes. I just hate slime on the belly. I had enough of that with my Cherokee! As far as oil slime goes, a little goes a long, long way! Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438865#438865 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Travel Canopy Covers
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Mar 01, 2015
Hi I have been reading posts regarding lightweight travel canopy covers. There seem to be a number of choices including Flightline (who did my interior), Bruce's who did my heavier Cherokee cover, Van's and Cleaveland. I am interested in something that is light but will not scratch my glass. I'd be interested in first hand opinions. Cheers Les C-GCWZ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438866#438866 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Slime Fighter
From: P Reid <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Date: Mar 01, 2015
Let it go until it does stabilize. My old narrow desk case likes 6qts. Any more it burns off ,temps are normal pressure is in range and I lose less than 1 qt in 6 hours. By 3 months and 25 hours oil it darker, like a new castle beer and not a guiness, at any point before replacing, so I don't think it's too low. Sent from my iPad > On Mar 1, 2015, at 6:48 PM, kearney wrote: > > > Dave / Linn > > Thanks for the comments. I filled the BPE engine with 12 qts before first start per Barrett's recommendations. Much of that was the "pipeline fill" for the oil cooler and oil lines. After a couple of ground runs I had a tad under 10 qts on the dipstick. After the first flight I added another qt as the oil seemed down. > > I am not sure what the engine "likes" oil wise but have been tracking it after each flight. It will be interesting to see where it stabilizes. I just hate slime on the belly. I had enough of that with my Cherokee! As far as oil slime goes, a little goes a long, long way! > > Cheers > > Les > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438865#438865 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel Canopy Covers
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Mar 02, 2015
Hi Les. I have used the Flightline cover from day one and could not be happier with it. I use it quite a bit when traveling. More than six years and my glass still looks almost like new. No scratching at all. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438869#438869 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Travel Canopy Covers
Date: Mar 02, 2015
Same here. I borrowed a Cleveland one once when I forgot mine and it's not 1/2 the cover...unless they've changed it since then. And the Bruce's one is a nice cover but it's so heavy if you travel with it you better not need much luggage. It's a better home-use cover. So that narrows down the choices a little. You'll like the Flightline one though. Tim > On Mar 2, 2015, at 4:52 AM, "dmaib(at)me.com" wrote: > > > Hi Les. I have used the Flightline cover from day one and could not be happier with it. I use it quite a bit when traveling. More than six years and my glass still looks almost like new. No scratching at all. > > -------- > David Maib > RV-10 #40559 > New Smyrna Beach, FL > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438869#438869 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2015
Subject: Re: Travel Canopy Covers
From: John Trollinger <john(at)trollingers.com>
I have the cover from Cleveland (only a few months old) and it looks exactly like the Flightline one, not sure if they changed or not. I have been very happy with it.. extremely light weight. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > Same here. I borrowed a Cleveland one once when I forgot mine and it's not > 1/2 the cover...unless they've changed it since then. And the Bruce's one > is a nice cover but it's so heavy if you travel with it you better not need > much luggage. It's a better home-use cover. > So that narrows down the choices a little. You'll like the Flightline one > though. > > Tim > > > > On Mar 2, 2015, at 4:52 AM, "dmaib(at)me.com" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Les. I have used the Flightline cover from day one and could not be > happier with it. I use it quite a bit when traveling. More than six years > and my glass still looks almost like new. No scratching at all. > > > > -------- > > David Maib > > RV-10 #40559 > > New Smyrna Beach, FL > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438869#438869 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Travel Canopy Covers
Date: Mar 02, 2015
Cleveland could've definitely change their cover, because the one I borrowed was pretty old for an RV 10, and all it was was a simple nylon cover. It wa sn't light blocking like the flightline one is, and it wasn't really waterpr oof like the flightline one is. I wasn't too impressed with that old one. Bu t if they make it out of different material now, it could be just fine. Tim > On Mar 2, 2015, at 6:35 AM, John Trollinger wrote: > > I have the cover from Cleveland (only a few months old) and it looks exact ly like the Flightline one, not sure if they changed or not. I have been ve ry happy with it.. extremely light weight. > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Tim Olson wrote: >> >> Same here. I borrowed a Cleveland one once when I forgot mine and it's no t 1/2 the cover...unless they've changed it since then. And the Bruce's one is a nice cover but it's so heavy if you travel with it you better not need much luggage. It's a better home-use cover. >> So that narrows down the choices a little. You'll like the Flightline on e though. >> >> Tim >> >> >> >> > On Mar 2, 2015, at 4:52 AM, "dmaib(at)me.com" wrote: >> > >> > >> > Hi Les. I have used the Flightline cover from day one and could not be h appier with it. I use it quite a bit when traveling. More than six years and my glass still looks almost like new. No scratching at all. >> > >> > -------- >> > David Maib >> > RV-10 #40559 >> > New Smyrna Beach, FL >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Read this topic online here: >> > >> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438869#438869 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> ========== >> -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 >> ========== > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New Low profile door handles
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mar 03, 2015
I shamelessly begged the order girl to go into the warehouse and look for a package that contained the same key number as my existing. Low and behold she found a set of locks and keys with the same number :D I figured there couldn't be that many different key sets and lucked out. -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438915#438915 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel Canopy Covers
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mar 03, 2015
I use a Bruce's custom cover, which is their full size cover that fits all the way down to the wing root. It weighs quite a bit compared to the day covers, but I like to use this on long trips. -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438916#438916 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Slime Fighter
From: "nukeflyboy" <flymoore(at)charter.net>
Date: Mar 03, 2015
I don't think any air/oil separator really works well. All of the advice so far I agree. To keep the oil haze off the belly I also collect the drops in a glass jar. I drain it every time I take the cowl off and it does look nasty. -------- Dave Moore RV-6 flying RV-10 QB - flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438928#438928 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel Canopy Covers
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 06, 2015
I use the Bruce's lightweight generic cover on the road. It's a tiny bit small for a 10 leaving the bottom couple inches of the door window uncovered, but it is light and packs down to the size of a small O2 bottle. Ton of rain at OSH this year and nothing leaked inside. As far as chafing goes, it is a loose cover that damages windows. This one stretches so tight the wind doesn't move it at all. -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Flew May 10 2014 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439111#439111 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2015
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Travel Canopy Covers
If you ask Bruce's for a little longer cover (to cover up those inches) they'll usually accommodate with little or no extra charge. Linn On 3/6/2015 2:38 PM, woxofswa wrote: > > I use the Bruce's lightweight generic cover on the road. It's a tiny bit small for a 10 leaving the bottom couple inches of the door window uncovered, but it is light and packs down to the size of a small O2 bottle. Ton of rain at OSH this year and nothing leaked inside. As far as chafing goes, it is a loose cover that damages windows. This one stretches so tight the wind doesn't move it at all. > > -------- > Myron Nelson > Mesa, AZ > Flew May 10 2014 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439111#439111 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Mar 08, 2015
Hi I have been putting hours on my new engine and in the process have noticed something that may or may not be odd. While taxing I try to lean the engine to keep the plugs from fouling. I have noticed that the #1 cylinder goes hot far faster than the others. Fr example, when leaning on the ground yesterday cyls #2-6 were +/- 1050 F while number 1 spiked quickly to 1385F. I simply en-richened somewhat to bring it down. I am perplexed as to why CYL # 1 would react tgis way. In the air I don't see this type of behavior, only on the ground. Any wisdom from the intelligentsia? Do I even care about this? Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439153#439153 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Mar 08, 2015
What are your cht's? I wouldn't worry about egt temps on the ground. Sent from my iPad > On Mar 8, 2015, at 11:00 AM, kearney wrote: > > > Hi > > I have been putting hours on my new engine and in the process have noticed something that may or may not be odd. While taxing I try to lean the engine to keep the plugs from fouling. I have noticed that the #1 cylinder goes hot far faster than the others. > > Fr example, when leaning on the ground yesterday cyls #2-6 were +/- 1050 F while number 1 spiked quickly to 1385F. I simply en-richened somewhat to bring it down. > > I am perplexed as to why CYL # 1 would react tgis way. > > In the air I don't see this type of behavior, only on the ground. > > Any wisdom from the intelligentsia? Do I even care about this? > > Cheers > > Les > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439153#439153 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mar 08, 2015
Les, Many people have experienced hotter temps on the front two cylinders due to the design of the dam in front being too large and after cutting it back the problem is solved. Seems like more of an issue in the air, but could be impacting you as well. Might be leaning a bit too much on taxi as well, just a thought. Might need to go for a slightly larger injector on #1 as well, but your in-flight numbers would be what really drives that change. Enjoy your testing! Marcus > On Mar 8, 2015, at 12:00 PM, kearney wrote: > > > Hi > > I have been putting hours on my new engine and in the process have noticed something that may or may not be odd. While taxing I try to lean the engine to keep the plugs from fouling. I have noticed that the #1 cylinder goes hot far faster than the others. > > Fr example, when leaning on the ground yesterday cyls #2-6 were +/- 1050 F while number 1 spiked quickly to 1385F. I simply en-richened somewhat to bring it down. > > I am perplexed as to why CYL # 1 would react tgis way. > > In the air I don't see this type of behavior, only on the ground. > > Any wisdom from the intelligentsia? Do I even care about this? > > Cheers > > Les > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439153#439153 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: LOP Education - APS Seminar
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Mar 08, 2015
Hi I have heard that the APS Seminar on LOP ops is worthwhile. Has anyone had first hand experience with their $395 on line course. I notice that they also have a 3 day live seminar as well. It would seem that a 3 day seminar to learn how to run an engine is a bit excessive. Amy I missing something here? Is LOP really that difficult to do correctly? Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439158#439158 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Mar 08, 2015
Rob / Marcus Thanks for the note. My CHTs, are fine, including in flight. I used silicon to seal the baffles and have followed the list advice as to how to keep the front cyls (#1 & 2) cool. My issue is strictly to do with taxing. Perhaps I am being too aggressive with my ground leaning, Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439160#439160 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
Date: Mar 08, 2015
Yep - same issue with my #3 cylinder. After balancing the cylinder fuel injectors, all cylinders reach peak EGT within 0.1 GPH fuel flow (standard cruise conditions, 2350 RPM and MP 23" or whatever I can get at altitude). On the ground when I lean for taxi (just enough gas to keep the engine running) all EGTs climb but #3 climbs more. I talked to Air Flow Performance on this and he asked me to do a high power lean run to verify the cylinders still peak at about the same fuel flow - they do. He ask me to do this to eliminate any issue with the spider (e.g. spring/flow/clog). Note - CHTs while leaning on the ground really don't change much. So - if not done already recommend you proceed with the in flight injector balancing, then take a look at where you are after that. Injectors of various sizes are available from Air Flow Performance for $21 each. For reference, the standard injector in a Vans IO-540 is 0.028". For my engine, this is the injector set up I ended up with (your engine will be different): #1 (.028) #2 (.029) #3 (.027) #4 (.027) #5 (.029) #6 (.0275) Before balance I had a 0.8 GPH spread between the cylinders for fuel flow at peak EGT. Lean of peak operation yielded a very rough engine. Now standard cruise is 20-30 degrees LOP, 11.5 GPH and CHTs are 30 degrees cooler than when ROP. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of kearney Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 11:00 AM Subject: RV10-List: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder Hi I have been putting hours on my new engine and in the process have noticed something that may or may not be odd. While taxing I try to lean the engine to keep the plugs from fouling. I have noticed that the #1 cylinder goes hot far faster than the others. Fr example, when leaning on the ground yesterday cyls #2-6 were +/- 1050 F while number 1 spiked quickly to 1385F. I simply en-richened somewhat to bring it down. I am perplexed as to why CYL # 1 would react tgis way. In the air I don't see this type of behavior, only on the ground. Any wisdom from the intelligentsia? Do I even care about this? Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439153#439153 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Patrick Thyssen <jump2(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
Date: Mar 08, 2015
Have you checked for intake leak on that cyl. Little leak at idle will show up as high temp since it'll leaned fuel mixture out and at full power it is small enough you might not notice it. What's your mp at idle? If it's around 15" -17" you prob. have a leak. Just my thoughts and as we know it's not worth much. Patrick Thyssen Sent from my iPad > On Mar 8, 2015, at 10:42 AM, kearney wrote: > > > Rob / Marcus > > Thanks for the note. My CHTs, are fine, including in flight. I used silicon to seal the baffles and have followed the list advice as to how to keep the front cyls (#1 & 2) cool. > > My issue is strictly to do with taxing. Perhaps I am being too aggressive with my ground leaning, > > Cheers > > Les > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439160#439160 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Subject: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
Date: Mar 08, 2015
You might try cleaning that injector or swapping it with the richest injector Alan Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 8, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > > > Les, > Many people have experienced hotter temps on the front two cylinders due to the design of the dam in front being too large and after cutting it back the problem is solved. Seems like more of an issue in the air, but could be impacting you as well. Might be leaning a bit too much on taxi as well, just a thought. Might need to go for a slightly larger injector on #1 as well, but your in-flight numbers would be what really drives that change. > > Enjoy your testing! > Marcus > > >> On Mar 8, 2015, at 12:00 PM, kearney wrote: >> >> >> Hi >> >> I have been putting hours on my new engine and in the process have noticed something that may or may not be odd. While taxing I try to lean the engine to keep the plugs from fouling. I have noticed that the #1 cylinder goes hot far faster than the others. >> >> Fr example, when leaning on the ground yesterday cyls #2-6 were +/- 1050 F while number 1 spiked quickly to 1385F. I simply en-richened somewhat to bring it down. >> >> I am perplexed as to why CYL # 1 would react tgis way. >> >> In the air I don't see this type of behavior, only on the ground. >> >> Any wisdom from the intelligentsia? Do I even care about this? >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439153#439153 > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Mar 08, 2015
check the intake gaskets on #1 for any sign of leaks. Do you see this behavior in the air at low throttle settings? At low MP there is a bigger differential between outside air presure and MP making leaks more obvious. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439164#439164 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
Date: Mar 08, 2015
One note: There is no such thing as leaning too aggressively on the ground for taxi. You SHOULD be leaning it SO FAR that if you try to get more than 1500-1800 RPM the engine stumbles and shudders and wants to die. That way you cannot possibly take off without going rich, and you are not leaving extra unburned fuel to foul the plugs and cylinders. Tim > On Mar 8, 2015, at 10:42 AM, kearney wrote: > > > Rob / Marcus > > Thanks for the note. My CHTs, are fine, including in flight. I used silicon to seal the baffles and have followed the list advice as to how to keep the front cyls (#1 & 2) cool. > > My issue is strictly to do with taxing. Perhaps I am being too aggressive with my ground leaning, > > Cheers > > Les > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439160#439160 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Mar 08, 2015
Hi Carl I have done the GAMI test. If I am interpreting the data correctly, my front two cyls peak at a FF of .5 & .7 GPH sooner than the remaining 4 which all peak within .1 GPH of each other. I think I'll give AFP a call and discuss. I was wondering if I should consider GAM injectors but if I can get the same result from AFP injectors at a fraction of the cost, that would be much, much better. Cheers Les carl.froehlich(at)verizon wrote: > Yep - same issue with my #3 cylinder. > > After balancing the cylinder fuel injectors, all cylinders reach peak EGT > within 0.1 GPH fuel flow (standard cruise conditions, 2350 RPM and MP 23" or > whatever I can get at altitude). On the ground when I lean for taxi (just > enough gas to keep the engine running) all EGTs climb but #3 climbs more. > > I talked to Air Flow Performance on this and he asked me to do a high power > lean run to verify the cylinders still peak at about the same fuel flow - > they do. He ask me to do this to eliminate any issue with the spider (e.g. > spring/flow/clog). > > Note - CHTs while leaning on the ground really don't change much. > > So - if not done already recommend you proceed with the in flight injector > balancing, then take a look at where you are after that. Injectors of > various sizes are available from Air Flow Performance for $21 each. For > reference, the standard injector in a Vans IO-540 is 0.028". For my engine, > this is the injector set up I ended up with (your engine will be different): > #1 (.028) #2 (.029) #3 (.027) #4 (.027) #5 (.029) #6 > (.0275) > > Before balance I had a 0.8 GPH spread between the cylinders for fuel flow at > peak EGT. Lean of peak operation yielded a very rough engine. Now standard > cruise is 20-30 degrees LOP, 11.5 GPH and CHTs are 30 degrees cooler than > when ROP. > > Carl > > -- Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439167#439167 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Mar 08, 2015
Hi Alan I should have mentioned that I have done both already with no change. I also plan to confirm the EGT distance from the valve as well as swap probes t see if it is a probe variance. Cheers Les amekler wrote: > You might try cleaning that injector or swapping it with the richest injector > Alan > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Mar 8, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > > > > > > > > Les, > > Many people have experienced hotter temps on the front two cylinders due to the design of the dam in front being too large and after cutting it back the problem is solved. Seems like more of an issue in the air, but could be impacting you as well. Might be leaning a bit too much on taxi as well, just a thought. Might need to go for a slightly larger injector on #1 as well, but your in-flight numbers would be what really drives that change. > > > > Enjoy your testing! > > Marcus > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2015, at 12:00 PM, kearney wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > I have been putting hours on my new engine and in the process have noticed something that may or may not be odd. While taxing I try to lean the engine to keep the plugs from fouling. I have noticed that the #1 cylinder goes hot far faster than the others. > > > > > > Fr example, when leaning on the ground yesterday cyls #2-6 were +/- 1050 F while number 1 spiked quickly to 1385F. I simply en-richened somewhat to bring it down. > > > > > > I am perplexed as to why CYL # 1 would react tgis way. > > > > > > In the air I don't see this type of behavior, only on the ground. > > > > > > Any wisdom from the intelligentsia? Do I even care about this? > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Les > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439153#439153 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439168#439168 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
Date: Mar 08, 2015
If a cylinder peaks early it is not getting enough fuel compared with the other cylinders. So you can either put a larger nozzle in #1 and #2, or leave them at 0.028 and put smaller ones in your other cylinders (like 0.027"). If you are striving for around 12 GPH in cruise, then I suspect AFP will recommend going smaller in cylinders 3, 4, 5 and 6. Keep in mind this is an iterative process. Change the injectors in the one or two cylinders that are the most out, do another data run, repeat. It took me three runs. I have the SkyView system so it's automatic data collection really made this easy. AFP makes injectors in wide range, typical increment is 0.0005" While I have no issue with GAMI injectors, I never saw the value in the very high price when the same result is achievable using $21 AFP nozzles. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of kearney Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 12:48 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder Hi Carl I have done the GAMI test. If I am interpreting the data correctly, my front two cyls peak at a FF of .5 & .7 GPH sooner than the remaining 4 which all peak within .1 GPH of each other. I think I'll give AFP a call and discuss. I was wondering if I should consider GAM injectors but if I can get the same result from AFP injectors at a fraction of the cost, that would be much, much better. Cheers Les carl.froehlich(at)verizon wrote: > Yep - same issue with my #3 cylinder. > > After balancing the cylinder fuel injectors, all cylinders reach peak > EGT within 0.1 GPH fuel flow (standard cruise conditions, 2350 RPM and > MP 23" or whatever I can get at altitude). On the ground when I lean > for taxi (just enough gas to keep the engine running) all EGTs climb but #3 climbs more. > > I talked to Air Flow Performance on this and he asked me to do a high > power lean run to verify the cylinders still peak at about the same > fuel flow - they do. He ask me to do this to eliminate any issue with the spider (e.g. > spring/flow/clog). > > Note - CHTs while leaning on the ground really don't change much. > > So - if not done already recommend you proceed with the in flight > injector balancing, then take a look at where you are after that. > Injectors of various sizes are available from Air Flow Performance for > $21 each. For reference, the standard injector in a Vans IO-540 is > 0.028". For my engine, this is the injector set up I ended up with (your engine will be different): > #1 (.028) #2 (.029) #3 (.027) #4 (.027) #5 (.029) #6 > (.0275) > > Before balance I had a 0.8 GPH spread between the cylinders for fuel > flow at peak EGT. Lean of peak operation yielded a very rough engine. > Now standard cruise is 20-30 degrees LOP, 11.5 GPH and CHTs are 30 > degrees cooler than when ROP. > > Carl > > -- Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439167#439167 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: LOP Education - APS Seminar
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mar 08, 2015
This is purely an opinion, but LOP is not rocket science and there is a wealth of info on this forum. Id start here and see if you feel comfortable with the lessons learned before dropping the $395. There are also a number of great articles by Mike Bush of Flying Magazine that you can probably find on the subject. Marcus > On Mar 8, 2015, at 12:37 PM, kearney wrote: > > > Hi > > I have heard that the APS Seminar on LOP ops is worthwhile. Has anyone had first hand experience with their $395 on line course. > > I notice that they also have a 3 day live seminar as well. It would seem that a 3 day seminar to learn how to run an engine is a bit excessive. Amy I missing something here? Is LOP really that difficult to do correctly? > > Cheers > > Les > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439158#439158 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
From: P Reid <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Date: Mar 08, 2015
Les I had the same issues. Thanks to Don McDonald, initially and David Brown (GAMI instructor) and his knowledge he helped interpret my settings and I was able to get everything to .3 from richest to leanest. What I discovered is You change one injector the others move around as well. You cut an air dam and the LOP goes out the window. I always had a hot #6 cyl and my #1 ran second hottest. When I cut down the dam in front of #1, temps went down across the board. When I got the LOP final set the temps all run much cooler. My suggestion is talk to Don and hear his suggestions, probably tell you to get .0270 or ..0275 for the four and see how everything balances after that change. It's worth the effort! Pascal Sent from my iPad > On Mar 8, 2015, at 9:54 AM, kearney wrote: > > > Hi Carl > > I have done the GAMI test. If I am interpreting the data correctly, my front two cyls peak at a FF of .5 & .7 GPH sooner than the remaining 4 which all peak within .1 GPH of each other. I think I'll give AFP a call and discuss. > > I was wondering if I should consider GAM injectors but if I can get the same result from AFP injectors at a fraction of the cost, that would be much, much better. > > Cheers > > Les > > > > > carl.froehlich(at)verizon wrote: >> Yep - same issue with my #3 cylinder. >> >> After balancing the cylinder fuel injectors, all cylinders reach peak EGT >> within 0.1 GPH fuel flow (standard cruise conditions, 2350 RPM and MP 23" or >> whatever I can get at altitude). On the ground when I lean for taxi (just >> enough gas to keep the engine running) all EGTs climb but #3 climbs more. >> >> I talked to Air Flow Performance on this and he asked me to do a high power >> lean run to verify the cylinders still peak at about the same fuel flow - >> they do. He ask me to do this to eliminate any issue with the spider (e.g. >> spring/flow/clog). >> >> Note - CHTs while leaning on the ground really don't change much. >> >> So - if not done already recommend you proceed with the in flight injector >> balancing, then take a look at where you are after that. Injectors of >> various sizes are available from Air Flow Performance for $21 each. For >> reference, the standard injector in a Vans IO-540 is 0.028". For my engine, >> this is the injector set up I ended up with (your engine will be different): >> #1 (.028) #2 (.029) #3 (.027) #4 (.027) #5 (.029) #6 >> (.0275) >> >> Before balance I had a 0.8 GPH spread between the cylinders for fuel flow at >> peak EGT. Lean of peak operation yielded a very rough engine. Now standard >> cruise is 20-30 degrees LOP, 11.5 GPH and CHTs are 30 degrees cooler than >> when ROP. >> >> Carl >> >> -- > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439167#439167 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Roger Standley <taildragon(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
Date: Mar 08, 2015
I'll go with Patrick on this one. I had high EGT on #4 on an idling brand n ew factory fresh IO-540! Turned out to be an "out of round" intake manifold so that the hose was not sealing completely. We found it by spraying with a light mist bottle while at idle and noticing the EGT change. Once we roun ded out the manifold with a rounding plug=2C seal was complete and all was fine. Roger Standley N291RV > From: jump2(at)sbcglobal.net > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder > Date: Sun=2C 8 Mar 2015 11:16:17 -0500 > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > > Have you checked for intake leak on that cyl. Little leak at idle will sh ow up as high temp since it'll leaned fuel mixture out and at full power it is small enough you might not notice it. What's your mp at idle? If it's a round 15" -17" you prob. have a leak. > Just my thoughts and as we know it's not worth much. > Patrick Thyssen > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Mar 8=2C 2015=2C at 10:42 AM=2C kearney wrote: > > > > > > Rob / Marcus > > > > Thanks for the note. My CHTs=2C are fine=2C including in flight. I used silicon to seal the baffles and have followed the list advice as to how to keep the front cyls (#1 & 2) cool. > > > > My issue is strictly to do with taxing. Perhaps I am being too aggressi ve with my ground leaning=2C > > > > Cheers > > > > Les > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439160#439160 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
I agree with the possibility of small leak as a cause. The other possibility, but likely to show up at all power settings is a single spark plug firing intermittently or not at all. Soap bubbles is one method. Another now being used in auto industry is a smoke generator that floods the manifold with smoke under slight pressure and you look for any escaping. Supposed to be more sensitive to small leaks than soap bubbles. On 3/8/2015 1:05 PM, Roger Standley wrote: > I'll go with Patrick on this one. I had high EGT on #4 on an idling > brand new factory fresh IO-540! Turned out to be an "out of round" > intake manifold so that the hose was not sealing completely. We found > it by spraying with a light mist bottle while at idle and noticing the > EGT change. Once we rounded out the manifold with a rounding plug, > seal was complete and all was fine. > > Roger Standley > N291RV > > > From: jump2(at)sbcglobal.net > > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder > > Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 11:16:17 -0500 > > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > > > > > Have you checked for intake leak on that cyl. Little leak at idle > will show up as high temp since it'll leaned fuel mixture out and at > full power it is small enough you might not notice it. What's your mp > at idle? If it's around 15" -17" you prob. have a leak. > > Just my thoughts and as we know it's not worth much. > > Patrick Thyssen > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > On Mar 8, 2015, at 10:42 AM, kearney wrote: > > > > > > > > > Rob / Marcus > > > > > > Thanks for the note. My CHTs, are fine, including in flight. I > used silicon to seal the baffles and have followed the list advice as > to how to keep the front cyls (#1 & 2) cool. > > > > > > My issue is strictly to do with taxing. Perhaps I am being too > aggressive with my ground leaning, > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Les > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439160#439160 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <===================== > >====== > > > > > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2015
Subject: Re: LOP Education - APS Seminar
From: John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com>
The seminar was specifically tailored to "Well Healed" owners of Continental IO-520 and 550s. They do one heck of a job. Many Beech and Cirrus owners have found the seminar well worth the value (Time & Money). LOP theory can be boiled down to effectively injecting each of your cylinders and judiciously monitoring data stream. Glass cockpit design has helped immensely. Knowing PEAK is a requirement. Understanding the Benefit/Risk of ROP and how far down the curve past PEAK you can run LEAN is the final exam. Those who are receptive, those who monitor the side haved saved countless $$ on AVGAS. FADEC is the only alternative to do the same without Intervention. The Rotax 912 iS is a stunning example over the 912 ULS in the RV-12. I valued the material. I believe I understand the Risks and the clear rewards. I know when not to walk the "Lean of Peak" trot. YMMV. I know of many a stubborn pilots who swear they would never cross to the other side. Throwing fuel at the issue is simple. Uncontrolled Detonation is the focus of the seminar training. John Cox On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 8:37 AM, kearney wrote: > > Hi > > I have heard that the APS Seminar on LOP ops is worthwhile. Has anyone had > first hand experience with their $395 on line course. > > I notice that they also have a 3 day live seminar as well. It would seem > that a 3 day seminar to learn how to run an engine is a bit excessive. Amy > I missing something here? Is LOP really that difficult to do correctly? > > Cheers > > Les > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439158#439158 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2015
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
Intake leaks can be easier to spot if you take a clean (read that word again) shop vac and hook it up to blow air into the intake and spray soapy water over the intake system. You can put rags around the hose to seal it a little. Much easier to spot bubbles than changes in EGT. Linn On 3/8/2015 4:05 PM, Roger Standley wrote: > I'll go with Patrick on this one. I had high EGT on #4 on an idling > brand new factory fresh IO-540! Turned out to be an "out of round" > intake manifold so that the hose was not sealing completely. We found > it by spraying with a light mist bottle while at idle and noticing the > EGT change. Once we rounded out the manifold with a rounding plug, > seal was complete and all was fine. > > Roger Standley > N291RV > > > From: jump2(at)sbcglobal.net > > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder > > Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 11:16:17 -0500 > > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > > > > > Have you checked for intake leak on that cyl. Little leak at idle > will show up as high temp since it'll leaned fuel mixture out and at > full power it is small enough you might not notice it. What's your mp > at idle? If it's around 15" -17" you prob. have a leak. > > Just my thoughts and as we know it's not worth much. > > Patrick Thyssen > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > On Mar 8, 2015, at 10:42 AM, kearney wrote: > > > > > > > > > Rob / Marcus > > > > > > Thanks for the note. My CHTs, are fine, including in flight. I > used silicon to seal the baffles and have followed the list advice as > to how to keep the front cyls (#1 & 2) cool. > > > > > > My issue is strictly to do with taxing. Perhaps I am being too > aggressive with my ground leaning, > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Les > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439160#439160 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <===================== > >====== > > > > > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Subject: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
Date: Mar 08, 2015
Les, I also used Don Rivera at AFP after unsuccessfully trying GAMIs. I even send my Spider back to Mattituck for recalibration. Don had me start with his injectors.I emailed him the flight data and after 3 flights with changing injectors have a .3 gallon spread and it runs fine LOP. I suggest to go to his web site and collect the flight data. He is great to work with. Also helpful is https://www.savvyanalysis.com/ to look at your data. good luck Alan > On Mar 8, 2015, at 12:51 PM, kearney wrote: > > > Hi Alan > > I should have mentioned that I have done both already with no change. I also plan to confirm the EGT distance from the valve as well as swap probes t see if it is a probe variance. > > Cheers > > Les > > > amekler wrote: >> You might try cleaning that injector or swapping it with the richest injector >> Alan >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >>> On Mar 8, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Les, >>> Many people have experienced hotter temps on the front two cylinders due to the design of the dam in front being too large and after cutting it back the problem is solved. Seems like more of an issue in the air, but could be impacting you as well. Might be leaning a bit too much on taxi as well, just a thought. Might need to go for a slightly larger injector on #1 as well, but your in-flight numbers would be what really drives that change. >>> >>> Enjoy your testing! >>> Marcus >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 8, 2015, at 12:00 PM, kearney wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I have been putting hours on my new engine and in the process have noticed something that may or may not be odd. While taxing I try to lean the engine to keep the plugs from fouling. I have noticed that the #1 cylinder goes hot far faster than the others. >>>> >>>> Fr example, when leaning on the ground yesterday cyls #2-6 were +/- 1050 F while number 1 spiked quickly to 1385F. I simply en-richened somewhat to bring it down. >>>> >>>> I am perplexed as to why CYL # 1 would react tgis way. >>>> >>>> In the air I don't see this type of behavior, only on the ground. >>>> >>>> Any wisdom from the intelligentsia? Do I even care about this? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Les >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Read this topic online here: >>>> >>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439153#439153 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439168#439168 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2015
From: LES KEARNEY <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder
Hi Alan I have AFP injectors / spider as well. I will give them a call after I confirm that I don't have an induction leak.I suspect that given that cyl#1 peaks first in flight, it just may be a flow issue but I need to confirm. Cheers Les ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Mekler MD" <amekler(at)metrocast.net> Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2015 5:14:01 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Hot EGT on # 1 Cylinder Les, I also used Don Rivera at AFP after unsuccessfully trying GAMIs. I even send my Spider back to Mattituck for recalibration. Don had me start with his injectors.I emailed him the flight data and after 3 flights with changing injectors have a .3 gallon spread and it runs fine LOP. I suggest to go to his web site and collect the flight data. He is great to work with. Also helpful is https://www . savvyanalysis .com/ to look at your data. good luck Alan On Mar 8, 2015, at 12:51 PM, kearney < kearney(at)shaw.ca > wrote: Hi Alan I should have mentioned that I have done both already with no change. I also plan to confirm the EGT distance from the valve as well as swap probes t see if it is a probe variance. Cheers Les amekler wrote:
You might try cleaning that injector or swapping it with the richest injector Alan Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 8, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: Les, Many people have experienced hotter temps on the front two cylinders due to the design of the dam in front being too large and after cutting it back the problem is solved. Seems like more of an issue in the air, but could be impacting you as well. Might be leaning a bit too much on taxi as well, just a thought. Might need to go for a slightly larger injector on #1 as well, but your in-flight numbers would be what really drives that change. Enjoy your testing! Marcus
On Mar 8, 2015, at 12:00 PM, kearney wrote: Hi I have been putting hours on my new engine and in the process have noticed something that may or may not be odd. While taxing I try to lean the engine to keep the plugs from fouling. I have noticed that the #1 cylinder goes hot far faster than the others. Fr example, when leaning on the ground yesterday cyls #2-6 were +/- 1050 F while number 1 spiked quickly to 1385F. I simply en-richened somewhat to bring it down. I am perplexed as to why CYL # 1 would react tgis way. In the air I don't see this type of behavior, only on the ground. Any wisdom from the intelligentsia? Do I even care about this? Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439153#439153
Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439168#439168
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: LOP Education - APS Seminar
From: "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com>
Date: Mar 08, 2015
Les, I did the online course and then a few months later the live seminar. I think at least the online course should be mandatory for anyone flying behind these engines. Some of the material is geared toward turbocharged engines simply because the margin of error is a lot less on those. Our engines are pretty indestructible in comparison. There's so much misinformation floating around about these engines, and these guys show you the data, real time, on a fully instrumented engine. You can watch the same thing on the online course videos, but it's way better to watch it live in the test cell, and tell George to do this or that to the engine and watch the pressure traces. These guys have spent countless hours trying to detonate and do all kinds of bad things to a bunch of different engines in their test cell. By the end of the seminar your head will spin from all of the information, but you'll get a much better understanding of your engine and a clear picture of how to manage the red knob which so many people are afraid of. I attended a Lycoming forum a couple of years ago at OSH, where they pretty much said if you run your engine LOP you'll kill it, sooner than later. Bullshit legal CYA. At APS you get the real data, without myths or biases or operating manuals written by lawyers. They do give you a manual: "The basic theory of operation of the Turbo Compound Engine", written in 1957. Contains the same or very similar pressure traces that are drawn on George's high tech screens... back then engines still liked running lean of peak... ;) The online course is surprisingly well put together and definitely worth the money. They have quizzes at the end of each chapter to verify that you really understood the material. They have a few in-flight videos and a couple of test cell videos. I felt that I learned a lot from the online course, but the live seminar gave me an even better understanding of my engine. One other thing, these guys have done the live event for many years and it shows in its organization. Everything went smoothly from start to finish. It was also very entertaining. Lenny Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439183#439183 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2015
Subject: New alternate cylinder for Lycomings
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
6.5 lbs lighter, able to run auto gas on 8.7 to 1 compression, and supposed to make about 5-7 hp more than regular Lyc cylinder. http://www.ace-performance.com/ under aviation solutions. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2015
Subject: Blue Sky visors?
From: Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com>
Do people like the Blue Sky visors? Any complaints? I haven't seen much discussion of them here in the last 5+ years. Looks like Spruce is selling them now: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/blueskysunvisors.php Thanks.. -Rob -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Blue Sky visors?
Date: Mar 08, 2015
I like mine. Have had them a long time now. Cost effective. Tim > On Mar 8, 2015, at 11:13 PM, Rob Kochman wrote: > > Do people like the Blue Sky visors? Any complaints? I haven't seen much d iscussion of them here in the last 5+ years. Looks like Spruce is selling t hem now: > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/blueskysunvisors.php > > Thanks.. > > -Rob > > -- > Rob Kochman > RV-10 Flying since March 2011 > Woodinville, WA > http://kochman.net/N819K > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Blue Sky visors?
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mar 09, 2015
I like mine. Much smaller than the others and does not feel like they get in your way. I mounted mine from the center brace. -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439192#439192 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Blue Sky visors?
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Mar 09, 2015
I am very happy with mine. I think they are the right size for the RV-10 cockpit, and the price was about half that of the competition when I bought mine back in the dark ages. (2008) -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439193#439193 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Aerosport Landing Light Installation
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mar 09, 2015
I just finished the installation of the Aerosport Landing Light Kit. The most difficult part was the paint. Unfortunately the light bezel intruded on the white as well as the blue paint, so it took a little more effort to match the paint. I used the Baja Designs 4 light super-bright LED. While I haven't tried it at night yet, with the hanger totally darkened, the nose light now makes the 75W wing tip lights look like a small flashlight! Can't wait to get it out at night. I was always hesitant to fly trips at night because of the poor lighting of the wing tip lights. I attached a couple of photos of the installation.I took a bunch of photos of the inside, but somehow between the hangar and home I lost the SD card. I took the above photos with my iphone. Next time I have the cowl off I will take some photos. What I ended up doing with the wire is using a #18 shielded wire, the Baja light only draws 3.5 amps. I already had heat shield stuck to my cowling, so I used some leftover pieces and just ran a 1 inch wide strip of adhesive heat shield with the wire centered in the middle up to the hinge line, then down the hinge line to the firewall where I used a molex connector. The wire is completely hidden and protected from heat. I will post an inside photo when I remove the cowl next. -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439200#439200 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0104_306.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0103_174.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2015
Subject: Re: Blue Sky visors?
From: <tom.on.the.road(at)juno.com>
I installed mine in my Lancair ES, and they work great. Very economical too. Tom N-905ET 970-420-1798 ____________________________________________________________ TaxSlayer Max your refund with TaxSlayer. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/54fe08a3dd97f8a32e2est01vuc ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Blue Sky visors?
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Mar 09, 2015
Hi I have a set of these and am quite happy with the result. They are much more affordable than the Rosen visors. When I had an adjustment problem, I gave them a call and they were quite helpful in explaining what I needed to do,. Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439211#439211 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Blue Sky visors?
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Mar 09, 2015
Hi I have a set of these and am quite happy with the result. They are much more affordable than the Rosen visors. When I had an adjustment problem, I gave them a call and they were quite helpful in explaining what I needed to do,. Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439212#439212 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Toy RV models
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 09, 2015
Looking for a model for a young cancer patient airplane nut who is the son of one of our pilots. I'd love to find an RV10 but if not, maybe a classic yellow cub to mix and balance with the myriad Military airplanes the kid is getting already. Any ideas of a source? -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Flew May 10 2014 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439219#439219 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Toy RV models
From: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com>
Date: Mar 10, 2015
I have used this company. Very happy with the products! http://www.factorydirectmodels.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439231#439231 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2015
Subject: Re: Blue Sky visors?
From: Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com>
Awesome... thanks, everyone. On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:53 PM, wrote: > > I installed mine in my Lancair ES, and they work great. Very economical > too. > > Tom > N-905ET > 970-420-1798 > > ____________________________________________________________ > TaxSlayer > Max your refund with TaxSlayer. > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/54fe08a3dd97f8a32e2est01vuc > > -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 12, 2015
Subject: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: John Trollinger <john(at)trollingers.com>
I am getting ready to do the nose wheel SB and am trying to figure out a good way to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist. I do have wing jacks I could use somewhere or try and pull the tail down with weights. Just trying to see what others might have done. thanks, John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 12, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
Check around your airport. A large number of aircraft owners have hoists. New ones are usually available at auto parts stores for less than $150, and somewhat less from Harbor Freight. Money well spent rather than trying to do something risky with your valuable airframe. Not to mention risk of injury. On 3/12/2015 6:00 AM, John Trollinger wrote: > I am getting ready to do the nose wheel SB and am trying to figure out > a good way to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist. I do have > wing jacks I could use somewhere or try and pull the tail down with > weights. Just trying to see what others might have done. > > thanks, > > John > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <lewgall(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
Date: Mar 12, 2015
Hey John, Good timing, we just did this yesterday. We pulled the tail down with the tie down. Enough to get the bolt out of the top of shock unit, then took the bottom bolt out so that the doughnuts came out as a unit. Put the plate in, put the unit back in, put bottom bolt in, then released the tail, then jacked the tail up enough to compress the doughnuts with SB plate (acts as slight new washer), put top bolt in ... done. Later, =93 Lew From: John Trollinger Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:00 AM Subject: RV10-List: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist I am getting ready to do the nose wheel SB and am trying to figure out a good way to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist. I do have wing jacks I could use somewhere or try and pull the tail down with weights. Just trying to see what others might have done. thanks, John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
Date: Mar 12, 2015
Pulling the tail down works great. If you have a good solid tie-down in the f loor, then holding the tail down while someone ties it down works fine. You n eed the tail close to the floor to clear up front. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad > On Mar 12, 2015, at 9:00 AM, John Trollinger wrote: > > I am getting ready to do the nose wheel SB and am trying to figure out a g ood way to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist. I do have wing jack s I could use somewhere or try and pull the tail down with weights. Just tr ying to see what others might have done. > > thanks, > > John > > 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: Mar 12, 2015
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
I have an eye-bolt in the hangar floor that I attach to with the tail tie-down using a come along (http://www.harborfreight.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?q=come+along). Works really well. -Sean #40303 (waiting for painter slot) Kelly McMullen wrote: > Check around your airport. A large number of aircraft owners have > hoists. New ones are usually available at auto parts stores for less > than $150, and somewhat less from Harbor Freight. Money well spent > rather than trying to do something risky with your valuable airframe. > Not to mention risk of injury. > > On 3/12/2015 6:00 AM, John Trollinger wrote: >> I am getting ready to do the nose wheel SB and am trying to figure >> out a good way to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist. I do >> have wing jacks I could use somewhere or try and pull the tail down >> with weights. Just trying to see what others might have done. >> >> thanks, >> >> John >> * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
Date: Mar 12, 2015
Getting ready to do this as well, thanks for the suggestions. Just curious what, if anything, folks are putting on the plate? I=99ve ready before preseal or red silicone. Wondering if there are any further thoughts? Marcus On Mar 12, 2015, at 9:19 AM, wrote: Hey John, Good timing, we just did this yesterday. We pulled the tail down with the tie down. Enough to get the bolt out of the top of shock unit, then took the bottom bolt out so that the doughnuts came out as a unit. Put the plate in, put the unit back in, put bottom bolt in, then released the tail, then jacked the tail up enough to compress the doughnuts with SB plate (acts as slight new washer), put top bolt in ... done. Later, =93 Lew From: John Trollinger <mailto:john(at)trollingers.com> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:00 AM Subject: RV10-List: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist I am getting ready to do the nose wheel SB and am trying to figure out a good way to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist. I do have wing jacks I could use somewhere or try and pull the tail down with weights. Just trying to see what others might have done. thanks, John href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics .com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
Date: Mar 12, 2015
I do the same exact thing. I cut a 1'x1' square out of my hangar floor and embedded a large turnbuckle in concrete flush with the floor. So i thread in the eyelet and crank it down with a come along jack. Much easier than a hoist, and less easy to damage the plane. My hoist is stored behind the plane and just rolling that out and folding out the legs is a bigger hazard. Tim > On Mar 12, 2015, at 8:31 AM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > > I have an eye-bolt in the hangar floor that I attach to with the tail tie-down using a come along (http://www.harborfreight.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?q=come+along). Works really well. > > -Sean #40303 (waiting for painter slot) > > Kelly McMullen wrote: >> Check around your airport. A large number of aircraft owners have hoists. New ones are usually available at auto parts stores for less than $150, and somewhat less from Harbor Freight. Money well spent rather than trying to do something risky with your valuable airframe. Not to mention risk of injury. >> >>> On 3/12/2015 6:00 AM, John Trollinger wrote: >>> I am getting ready to do the nose wheel SB and am trying to figure out a good way to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist. I do have wing jacks I could use somewhere or try and pull the tail down with weights. Just trying to see what others might have done. >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> John >>> * > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "g.combs" <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com>
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
Date: Mar 12, 2015
I bought a furniture dolly at harbor freight added center board with nice eye bolt and then added solid concrete blocks and left room to get an 1.5 inch rachet strap down to the eye bolt. this way I can pull the tail down were ever it is. Works great. I can roll it around very easy And store it in the corner. Takes up More room than the eye bolt in the Concrete but more adjustable. Just another idea that works Geoff Sent from my iPhone Geoff Combs Aerosport Modeling & Design > On Mar 12, 2015, at 9:06 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > Check around your airport. A large number of aircraft owners have hoists. New ones are usually available at auto parts stores for less than $150, and somewhat less from Harbor Freight. Money well spent rather than trying to do something risky with your valuable airframe. Not to mention risk of injury. > >> On 3/12/2015 6:00 AM, John Trollinger wrote: >> I am getting ready to do the nose wheel SB and am trying to figure out a good way to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist. I do have wing jacks I could use somewhere or try and pull the tail down with weights. Just trying to see what others might have done. >> >> thanks, >> >> John >> * >> >> >> * > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
Date: Mar 12, 2015
I used proseal =93 works fine. I do not consider it safe to use the tail tie down bolt to pull down the tail. Remember this tie down is a light piece of threaded aluminum =93 that you cut the threads for. The risk is the eye bolt pulling out and you dropping the prop and engine onto the hangar floor. A Harbor Freight engine hoist is exceptionally cheap compared to recovering from a nose crash even if you are not hurt. The hoist will be used at least for every annual as well when you pull the nose wheel to grease the bearings. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:37 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist Getting ready to do this as well, thanks for the suggestions. Just curious what, if anything, folks are putting on the plate? I=99ve ready before preseal or red silicone. Wondering if there are any further thoughts? Marcus On Mar 12, 2015, at 9:19 AM, wrote: Hey John, Good timing, we just did this yesterday. We pulled the tail down with the tie down. Enough to get the bolt out of the top of shock unit, then took the bottom bolt out so that the doughnuts came out as a unit. Put the plate in, put the unit back in, put bottom bolt in, then released the tail, then jacked the tail up enough to compress the doughnuts with SB plate (acts as slight new washer), put top bolt in ... done. Later, =93 Lew From: John Trollinger <mailto:john(at)trollingers.com> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:00 AM Subject: RV10-List: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist I am getting ready to do the nose wheel SB and am trying to figure out a good way to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist. I do have wing jacks I could use somewhere or try and pull the tail down with weights. Just trying to see what others might have done. thanks, John href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic s.com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c class="">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List class="">http://forums.matronics.com class="">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mar 12, 2015
I havent tried it yet, but in the past some folks recommended filing a plastic tote with concrete and imbedding a hook in it. Sounds like a nice alternative to those of us without a eyelet in our hangar floor or the option to add one but can still pull the tail down. Marcus On Mar 12, 2015, at 9:57 AM, Tim Olson wrote: I do the same exact thing. I cut a 1'x1' square out of my hangar floor and embedded a large turnbuckle in concrete flush with the floor. So i thread in the eyelet and crank it down with a come along jack. Much easier than a hoist, and less easy to damage the plane. My hoist is stored behind the plane and just rolling that out and folding out the legs is a bigger hazard. Tim > On Mar 12, 2015, at 8:31 AM, Sean Stephens wrote: > > > I have an eye-bolt in the hangar floor that I attach to with the tail tie-down using a come along (http://www.harborfreight.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?q=come+along). Works really well. > > -Sean #40303 (waiting for painter slot) > > Kelly McMullen wrote: >> Check around your airport. A large number of aircraft owners have hoists. New ones are usually available at auto parts stores for less than $150, and somewhat less from Harbor Freight. Money well spent rather than trying to do something risky with your valuable airframe. Not to mention risk of injury. >> >>> On 3/12/2015 6:00 AM, John Trollinger wrote: >>> I am getting ready to do the nose wheel SB and am trying to figure out a good way to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist. I do have wing jacks I could use somewhere or try and pull the tail down with weights. Just trying to see what others might have done. >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> John >>> * > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 12, 2015
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
Yeah, Geoff's idea is great, and a tote would work too. Regarding Carl's not trusting the threads, I think the threads are plenty tough for the job. It takes less than 250 lbs for sure to raise the nose. Depending on the way the aircraft is loaded (you could add weight to the baggage area), I'm guessing you can raise the nose by pulling that bolt with anywhere from 75 to 200 lbs of force max. If the tiedown can't hold that, then we shouldn't be tying down with it, and if the tail can't hold that, I'm not sure I'd trust the airframe. Tim On 3/12/2015 9:14 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > > I havent tried it yet, but in the past some folks recommended filing a plastic tote with concrete and imbedding a hook in it. Sounds like a nice alternative to those of us without a eyelet in our hangar floor or the option to add one but can still pull the tail down. > > Marcus > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 12, 2015
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com>
When I did mine, I put enough heavy stuff in the baggage area that I think I needed only about 50lbs of force on the tiedown to get the wheel off the floor. On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > Yeah, Geoff's idea is great, and a tote would work too. > Regarding Carl's not trusting the threads, I think the threads > are plenty tough for the job. It takes less than 250 lbs > for sure to raise the nose. Depending on the way the aircraft > is loaded (you could add weight to the baggage area), I'm guessing > you can raise the nose by pulling that bolt with anywhere from > 75 to 200 lbs of force max. If the tiedown can't hold that, > then we shouldn't be tying down with it, and if the tail can't > hold that, I'm not sure I'd trust the airframe. > > Tim > > > On 3/12/2015 9:14 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > >> >> I haven=99t tried it yet, but in the past some folks recommended f iling a >> plastic tote with concrete and imbedding a hook in it. Sounds like a ni ce >> alternative to those of us without a eyelet in our hangar floor or the >> option to add one but can still pull the tail down. >> >> Marcus >> >> > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
Date: Mar 12, 2015
One question on using proseal or any other bonding agent, what is the purpose for it? Once the plate is in place I can=99t imagine it=99s going to move around any given the pressures involved. Is there another benefit? The SB does not mention using anything. FWIW the SB also recommends the use of a =9Cballasted tail stand=9D so the company does not seem to find an issue with that method of pulling the tail down. As always, thanks for all the great insight on this forum, Marcus On Mar 12, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: I used proseal =93 works fine. I do not consider it safe to use the tail tie down bolt to pull down the tail. Remember this tie down is a light piece of threaded aluminum =93 that you cut the threads for. The risk is the eye bolt pulling out and you dropping the prop and engine onto the hangar floor. A Harbor Freight engine hoist is exceptionally cheap compared to recovering from a nose crash even if you are not hurt. The hoist will be used at least for every annual as well when you pull the nose wheel to grease the bearings. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:37 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist Getting ready to do this as well, thanks for the suggestions. Just curious what, if anything, folks are putting on the plate? I=99ve ready before preseal or red silicone. Wondering if there are any further thoughts? Marcus On Mar 12, 2015, at 9:19 AM, > > wrote: Hey John, Good timing, we just did this yesterday. We pulled the tail down with the tie down. Enough to get the bolt out of the top of shock unit, then took the bottom bolt out so that the doughnuts came out as a unit. Put the plate in, put the unit back in, put bottom bolt in, then released the tail, then jacked the tail up enough to compress the doughnuts with SB plate (acts as slight new washer), put top bolt in ... done. Later, =93 Lew From: John Trollinger <mailto:john(at)trollingers.com> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:00 AM Subject: RV10-List: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist I am getting ready to do the nose wheel SB and am trying to figure out a good way to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist. I do have wing jacks I could use somewhere or try and pull the tail down with weights. Just trying to see what others might have done. thanks, John href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>">http://www.matronics.com/N avigator?RV10-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> href="http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>">http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>">http://www.matronics.com/c <http://www.matronics.com/c> class="">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> class="">http://forums.matronics.com class="">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 12, 2015
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
The tiedown attachment in the tail is pretty robust but if you have concerns about the amount of threads captured by the tiedown ring's shaft, use a longer bolt and make a temporary tiedown attachment so you can pull the tail down. The 'receiver' for the tiedown ring goes way there! The other method is to place sandbags on the horizontal stab and/or the fuselage fwd of the vertical stab. Lay the bags (I use bags of salt for my water softener because I have them) along the spar to spread the load. Linn On 3/12/2015 10:10 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > > I used proseal works fine. > > I do not consider it safe to use the tail tie down bolt to pull down > the tail. Remember this tie down is a light piece of threaded > aluminum that you cut the threads for. The risk is the eye bolt > pulling out and you dropping the prop and engine onto the hangar > floor. A Harbor Freight engine hoist is exceptionally cheap compared > to recovering from a nose crash even if you are not hurt. The hoist > will be used at least for every annual as well when you pull the nose > wheel to grease the bearings. > > Carl > > *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Marcus Cooper > *Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:37 AM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine > hoist > > Getting ready to do this as well, thanks for the suggestions. Just > curious what, if anything, folks are putting on the plate? Ive ready > before preseal or red silicone. Wondering if there are any further > thoughts? > > Marcus > > On Mar 12, 2015, at 9:19 AM, > > wrote: > > Hey John, > > Good timing, we just did this yesterday. We pulled the tail down with > the tie down. Enough to get the bolt out of the top of shock unit, > then took the bottom bolt out so that the doughnuts came out as a > unit. Put the plate in, put the unit back in, put bottom bolt in, > then released the tail, then jacked the tail up enough to compress the > doughnuts with SB plate (acts as slight new washer), put top bolt in > ... done. > > Later, Lew > > *From:*John Trollinger > > *Sent:*Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:00 AM > > *To:*rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > *Subject:*RV10-List: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist > > I am getting ready to do the nose wheel SB and am trying to figure out > a good way to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist. I do have > wing jacks I could use somewhere or try and pull the tail down with > weights. Just trying to see what others might have done. > > thanks, > > John > > * * > * * > *href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* > *href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com* > *href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c* > * * > * * > *class="">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* > *class="">http://forums.matronics.com* > *class="">http://www.matronics.com/contribution* > * * > > * * > * * > ** > ** > ** > ** > ** > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* > ** > ** > *http://forums.matronics.com* > ** > ** > ** > ** > *http://www.matronics.com/contribution* > ** > * * > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: "rleffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com>
Date: Mar 12, 2015
I copied Geoff's approach a couple years ago. It works great. I just did the SB this past weekend. Getting the nose off the ground was the easy part. Here's a photo: -------- Bob Leffler N410BL - Phase I http://mykitlog.com/rleffler Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439296#439296 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/fp25032012a00055_152.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 12, 2015
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
I know it is popular for homebuilders to invent their own solutions. However, most certified manufacturers do not approve of winching on the tail tiedown and discourage using it as an anchor to lever the nose up. They are designed to secure the tail at a 45 degree pull angle for forces the horizontal stab can generate, not a direct pull vertically or horizontally. Yes, it probably is strong enough if Murphy doesn't visit. You have a $150,000 and up aircraft. Virtually everyone had access to a hoist to install the engine. You can generally find hoists for not much over $100 to buy, new. In other words about the cost of an hour's flight or a tungsten bucking bar. Do you really want to risk damage to something you worked so hard to build? On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Linn Walters wrote : > The tiedown attachment in the tail is pretty robust but if you have > concerns about the amount of threads captured by the tiedown ring's shaft , > use a longer bolt and make a temporary tiedown attachment so you can pull > the tail down. The 'receiver' for the tiedown ring goes way there! > > The other method is to place sandbags on the horizontal stab and/or the > fuselage fwd of the vertical stab. Lay the bags (I use bags of salt for my > water softener because I have them) along the spar to spread the load. > Linn > > > On 3/12/2015 10:10 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > > I used proseal =93 works fine. > > > I do not consider it safe to use the tail tie down bolt to pull down the > tail. Remember this tie down is a light piece of threaded aluminum =93 that > you cut the threads for. The risk is the eye bolt pulling out and you > dropping the prop and engine onto the hangar floor. A Harbor Freight > engine hoist is exceptionally cheap compared to recovering from a nose > crash even if you are not hurt. The hoist will be used at least for ever y > annual as well when you pull the nose wheel to grease the bearings. > > > Carl > > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [ > mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > ] *On Behalf Of *Marcus Cooper > *Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:37 AM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine > hoist > > > Getting ready to do this as well, thanks for the suggestions. Just > curious what, if anything, folks are putting on the plate? I=99ve ready > before preseal or red silicone. Wondering if there are any further > thoughts? > > > Marcus > > > On Mar 12, 2015, at 9:19 AM, > wrote: > > > Hey John, > > > Good timing, we just did this yesterday. We pulled the tail down with th e > tie down. Enough to get the bolt out of the top of shock unit, then took > the bottom bolt out so that the doughnuts came out as a unit. Put the > plate in, put the unit back in, put bottom bolt in, then released the tai l, > then jacked the tail up enough to compress the doughnuts with SB plate > (acts as slight new washer), put top bolt in ... done. > > > Later, =93 Lew > > > *From:* John Trollinger > > *Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:00 AM > > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > > *Subject:* RV10-List: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist > > > I am getting ready to do the nose wheel SB and am trying to figure out a > good way to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist. I do have wing > jacks I could use somewhere or try and pull the tail down with weights. > Just trying to see what others might have done. > > > thanks, > > > John > > > *href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List < http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>* > > *href="http://forums.matronics.com ">http: //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>* > > *href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution ">http://www.matronics.com/c * > > > *class="">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List * > > *class="">http://forums.matronics.com * > > *class="">http://www.matronics.com/contribution * > > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List * > > *http://forums.matronics.com * > > *http://www.matronics.com/contribution * > > > * > =========== onics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> =========== =========== om/contribution> =========== > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 12, 2015
I did mine yesterday using a 2x6 between two wing jacks right behind the firewall. Worked great, but in hindsight would have been just as easy with a single jack. You don't have to lift high at all. Be sure to chock the mains. One advantage of lifting from the front is that it was super simple to make tiny adjustments to get the bolts back lined up again. -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Flew May 10 2014 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439306#439306 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carroll L. Verhage" <cv93436(at)windstream.net>
Subject: How to lift RV10 nose gear
Date: Mar 13, 2015
Buy a 24inch flat-bottomed hydraulic jack from Harbor Freight. Fix a 1x4 board to the top of the jack. Pad the 1x4 with a piece of carpet. Place the 1x4 under the fuselage just behind the fire wall above the exhaust pipes and jack it up. Make sure you block the main gear so the plane does't roll off the jack. Better yet, make a support stand to hold the jack up and you won't have to block the main gear. This works well for all 3 jacks so you can safely lift the whole air plane. See my recommendation in the archives of about 2 years ago. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 14, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Has Low cost ADS-B arrived?
Looks like there is a much cheaper option for those that haven't already invested. Of course there is much gnashing of teeth for the factory built aircraft. http://www.flyingmag.com/avionics-gear/instrumentaccessories/ads-b-compliance-699-its-true-sort <http://www.flyingmag.com/avionics-gear/instrumentaccessories/ads-b-compliance-699-its-true-sort> Kelly ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 14, 2015
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
On 3/12/2015 10:14 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > > I havent tried it yet, but in the past some folks recommended filing a plastic tote with concrete and imbedding a hook in it. Sounds like a nice alternative to those of us without a eyelet in our hangar floor or the option to add one but can still pull the tail down. > If you look carefully you can see the concrete filled crate I embedded a hook in to winch the tail down to with a tie down strap. Even though I have the ubiqutous HF winch, I find it awkward for lifting the nose for this particular operation. BTW, I load the baggage compartment down with water bottles. Kitlog - tail raising and lowering <http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=MauleDriver&project=224&category=7984&log=199155&row=2> You can also see how I used the HF wince to raise the tail and compress the donuts. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com>
Date: Mar 14, 2015
Kelly said "...They are designed to secure the tail at a 45 degree pull angle for forces the horizontal stab can generate, not a direct pull vertically or horizontally..." Not to split hairs here, but that makes very little sense as basic physics tells us that the "45 degree pull angle" can be resolved by the summation of a horizontal and vertical components. Therefore, it matters not whether the force is applied vertically or at a 45 degree angle so long as the vertical force does not exceed any structural limitations. According to many that have tied the tail, it takes less than 250 lbs. The force that the stabilizer can produce is certainly greater than that. Of course, the stabilizer is mounted to distribute it load, so that needs to be considered. For me, I will have no issues borrowing the brick cart idea to secure the tail when necessary. YMMV. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439378#439378 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Has Low cost ADS-B arrived?
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Mar 14, 2015
This just does not smell right. Whether normally certified or E-AB, FAR 91.225 and .227 apply to both equally. 91.227 requires that the position source meet certain standards. So far Navworks has not stated unequivocally that the gps meets those standards. And certainly almost no owner can so state with any authority. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439379#439379 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 14, 2015
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
I don't disagree, however, the method of fastening the tiedown, the direction of pull etc do matter as to determining the actual structural strength. Whether rivets are in tension or shear matters. Same for the threads. If one loads the baggage compartment to lower the needed force, that side is good, but you need to protect against banging the tail on the floor. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Rocketman1988 wrote: > > Kelly said "...They are designed to secure the tail at a 45 degree pull > angle for forces the horizontal stab can generate, not a direct pull > vertically or horizontally..." > > Not to split hairs here, but that makes very little sense as basic physics > tells us that the "45 degree pull angle" can be resolved by the summation > of a horizontal and vertical components. Therefore, it matters not whether > the force is applied vertically or at a 45 degree angle so long as the > vertical force does not exceed any structural limitations. > > According to many that have tied the tail, it takes less than 250 lbs. > The force that the stabilizer can produce is certainly greater than that. > Of course, the stabilizer is mounted to distribute it load, so that needs > to be considered. For me, I will have no issues borrowing the brick cart > idea to secure the tail when necessary. > > YMMV. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439378#439378 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Mar 14, 2015
I'd say you're both right, in some circumstances.(!) If you're talking about the structure (tailcone, spars, etc) then the ideal physics analysis is very good. At 45 degrees, 71% (actually one over the square root of two) of the force is vertical, and an equal amount is horizontal. But if you're talking about pulling out the threads, it is more complicated. The horizontal force will cause the bolt to pivot slightly, "locking" the bottom and top of the bolt deeper into the threads, where they are thicker, and thus have a lot more strength in tension. To visualize this, imagine that the tail had been tapped oversize, so the threads of the bolt just barely grabbed. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439382#439382 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com>
Date: Mar 14, 2015
Agreed. It is all just academic anyway because that tie down is threaded for a 3/8" bolt any unless you really messed up tapping the hole, 250 lbs is never going to pull those threads out... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439385#439385 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 15, 2015
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: Craig Rufi <craigr60(at)gmail.com>
Hi All' I plan on reducing the load on the tie down by adding about 80 lbs in the baggage compartment. I also was thinking of 40 lbs on either side of the vertical stabilizer. Thoughts? I'm getting closer to the finish line! Craig Rufi On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > I'd say you're both right, in some circumstances.(!) > If you're talking about the structure (tailcone, spars, etc) then the > ideal physics analysis is very good. At 45 degrees, 71% (actually one over > the square root of two) of the force is vertical, and an equal amount is > horizontal. > But if you're talking about pulling out the threads, it is more > complicated. The horizontal force will cause the bolt to pivot slightly, > "locking" the bottom and top of the bolt deeper into the threads, where > they are thicker, and thus have a lot more strength in tension. To > visualize this, imagine that the tail had been tapped oversize, so the > threads of the bolt just barely grabbed. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439382#439382 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 15, 2015
>>Hi All'I plan on reducing the load on the tie down by adding about 80 lbs in the baggage compartment. I also was thinking of 40 lbs on either side of the vertical stabilizer. -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Flew May 10 2014 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439407#439407 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 15, 2015
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
I use bags of water softener salt to weight the tail and other things. The plastic 40# bags are tough, and convenient. Find the brand with built in handles. Use some care to make sure they don't slide off when the angle changes, and of course make sure they pick up the structure of the stab. You'll be fine. They belt in to the seats pretty well too when you do gross weight testing. We would duct tape several together to make them body-size. Then, make REALLY sure it's well secured so that Sal doesn't slump forward on the controls... --Dave On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Craig Rufi wrote: > Hi All' > I plan on reducing the load on the tie down by adding about 80 lbs in the > baggage compartment. I also was thinking of 40 lbs on either side of the > vertical stabilizer. > Thoughts? > I'm getting closer to the finish line! > > Craig Rufi > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Bob Turner > wrote: > >> >> I'd say you're both right, in some circumstances.(!) >> If you're talking about the structure (tailcone, spars, etc) then the >> ideal physics analysis is very good. At 45 degrees, 71% (actually one over >> the square root of two) of the force is vertical, and an equal amount is >> horizontal. >> But if you're talking about pulling out the threads, it is more >> complicated. The horizontal force will cause the bolt to pivot slightly, >> "locking" the bottom and top of the bolt deeper into the threads, where >> they are thicker, and thus have a lot more strength in tension. To >> visualize this, imagine that the tail had been tapped oversize, so the >> threads of the bolt just barely grabbed. >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439382#439382 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========== >> -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 >> ========== >> >> >> >> > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 15, 2015
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
I use bags of water softener salt to weight the tail and other things. The plastic 40# bags are tough, and convenient. Find the brand with built in handles. Use some care to make sure they don't slide off when the angle changes, and of course make sure they pick up the structure of the stab. You'll be fine. They belt in to the seats pretty well too when you do gross weight testing. We would duct tape several together to make them body-size. Then, make REALLY sure it's well secured so that Sal doesn't slump forward on the controls... --Dave On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Craig Rufi wrote: > Hi All' > I plan on reducing the load on the tie down by adding about 80 lbs in the > baggage compartment. I also was thinking of 40 lbs on either side of the > vertical stabilizer. > Thoughts? > I'm getting closer to the finish line! > > Craig Rufi > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Bob Turner > wrote: > >> >> I'd say you're both right, in some circumstances.(!) >> If you're talking about the structure (tailcone, spars, etc) then the >> ideal physics analysis is very good. At 45 degrees, 71% (actually one over >> the square root of two) of the force is vertical, and an equal amount is >> horizontal. >> But if you're talking about pulling out the threads, it is more >> complicated. The horizontal force will cause the bolt to pivot slightly, >> "locking" the bottom and top of the bolt deeper into the threads, where >> they are thicker, and thus have a lot more strength in tension. To >> visualize this, imagine that the tail had been tapped oversize, so the >> threads of the bolt just barely grabbed. >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439382#439382 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========== >> -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 >> ========== >> >> >> >> > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Has Low cost ADS-B arrived?
From: "AirMike" <Mikeabel(at)Pacbell.net>
Date: Mar 15, 2015
My intuition tells me that this unit resides in the same squishy area as IFR navigation equipment for EAB aircraft, and my guess is that if you put one of these in your EAB aircraft, that there will be no squealing from the powers that be. After all we are not exactly (for the most part) flying high performance turbine equipment. Modern GPS - even in my I-Pad updates way faster than the FAA's antiquated mode C - transponder system. Kudos to these guys for getting this on the shelf for us to meet the 2020 deadline. :D -------- See you OSH '15 Q/B - flying 5 yrs. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439410#439410 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
Date: Mar 15, 2015
I would skip it on the stabilizer. Too much chance of bending thin skins an d it would be easier for it to fall off and lose that weight. Just throw it in the baggage area and you'll be fine. Tim > On Mar 15, 2015, at 9:23 AM, Craig Rufi wrote: > > Hi All' > I plan on reducing the load on the tie down by adding about 80 lbs in the b aggage compartment. I also was thinking of 40 lbs on either side of the vert ical stabilizer. > Thoughts? > I'm getting closer to the finish line! > > Craig Rufi > >> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Bob Turner wro te: >> >> I'd say you're both right, in some circumstances.(!) >> If you're talking about the structure (tailcone, spars, etc) then the ide al physics analysis is very good. At 45 degrees, 71% (actually one over the s quare root of two) of the force is vertical, and an equal amount is horizont al. >> But if you're talking about pulling out the threads, it is more complicat ed. The horizontal force will cause the bolt to pivot slightly, "locking" th e bottom and top of the bolt deeper into the threads, where they are thicker , and thus have a lot more strength in tension. To visualize this, imagine t hat the tail had been tapped oversize, so the threads of the bolt just barel y grabbed. >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439382#439382 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========== >> -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 >> ========== >> >> >> > > > 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: Mar 15, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Has Low cost ADS-B arrived?
There are GPS performance specs as to accuracy as to location, heading and ground speed, frequency of update, etc. Your Ipad is very unlikely to meet those specs. Most decent WAAS GPS modules today receive at least 12 satellites simultaneously, apply WAAS correction, and output updates 5 times per second. No relationship to radar and transponders which update once per 6 seconds at best. The guts of a GPS that does the above cost under $50 in quantity. Apple chose a different route, using cell phone towers and a cheap non-WAAS GPS to derive position. I don't know if they improved the GPS as newer models came out. They still use cell phone tower locations to massage the location, something the FAA would not accept. On 3/15/2015 8:26 AM, AirMike wrote: > > My intuition tells me that this unit resides in the same squishy area as IFR navigation equipment for EAB aircraft, and my guess is that if you put one of these in your EAB aircraft, that there will be no squealing from the powers that be. After all we are not exactly (for the most part) flying high performance turbine equipment. Modern GPS - even in my I-Pad updates way faster than the FAA's antiquated mode C - transponder system. Kudos to these guys for getting this on the shelf for us to meet the 2020 deadline. :D > > -------- > See you OSH '15 > Q/B - flying 5 yrs. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439410#439410 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 15, 2015
Subject: Re: Has Low cost ADS-B arrived?
From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>
On 3/15/2015 12:24 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > The guts of a GPS that does the above cost under $50 in quantity. > Apple chose a different route, using cell phone towers and a cheap > non-WAAS GPS to derive position. I don't know if they improved the > GPS as newer models came out. They did. The newer models (I believe iPad 2 was the first) all use WAAS GPS chipsets and do not require cell towers for assistance. -Dj -- Dj Merrill - N1JOV - EAA Chapter 87 Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 15, 2015
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: Craig Rufi <craigr60(at)gmail.com>
Thanks Dave, When you say,"pick up the structure of the stabilizer" I'm taking that to mean close to the vertical stabilizer, and balanced on both sides. There the ribs are closer together and a stronger surface for the bags to rest on. My pool also needs a little more salt too:-)) On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:57 AM, David Saylor wrote: > I use bags of water softener salt to weight the tail and other things. > The plastic 40# bags are tough, and convenient. Find the brand with built > in handles. Use some care to make sure they don't slide off when the angle > changes, and of course make sure they pick up the structure of the stab. > You'll be fine. > > They belt in to the seats pretty well too when you do gross weight > testing. We would duct tape several together to make them body-size. > Then, make REALLY sure it's well secured so that Sal doesn't slump forward > on the controls... > > --Dave > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Craig Rufi wrote: > >> Hi All' >> I plan on reducing the load on the tie down by adding about 80 lbs in the >> baggage compartment. I also was thinking of 40 lbs on either side of the >> vertical stabilizer. >> Thoughts? >> I'm getting closer to the finish line! >> >> Craig Rufi >> >> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Bob Turner >> wrote: >> >>> >>> I'd say you're both right, in some circumstances.(!) >>> If you're talking about the structure (tailcone, spars, etc) then the >>> ideal physics analysis is very good. At 45 degrees, 71% (actually one over >>> the square root of two) of the force is vertical, and an equal amount is >>> horizontal. >>> But if you're talking about pulling out the threads, it is more >>> complicated. The horizontal force will cause the bolt to pivot slightly, >>> "locking" the bottom and top of the bolt deeper into the threads, where >>> they are thicker, and thus have a lot more strength in tension. To >>> visualize this, imagine that the tail had been tapped oversize, so the >>> threads of the bolt just barely grabbed. >>> >>> -------- >>> Bob Turner >>> RV-10 QB >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Read this topic online here: >>> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439382#439382 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ========== >>> -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 >>> ========== >>> >>> >>> >>> >> * >> >> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com> >> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> >> * >> >> > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 15, 2015
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
Kind of. I mean make sure you have contact with the spars and as many ribs as possible. And yes, as close to the root as you can. --D On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Craig Rufi wrote: > Thanks Dave, > When you say,"pick up the structure of the stabilizer" I'm taking that to > mean close to the vertical stabilizer, and balanced on both sides. There > the ribs are closer together and a stronger surface for the bags to rest on. > > My pool also needs a little more salt too:-)) > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:57 AM, David Saylor > wrote: > >> I use bags of water softener salt to weight the tail and other things. >> The plastic 40# bags are tough, and convenient. Find the brand with built >> in handles. Use some care to make sure they don't slide off when the angle >> changes, and of course make sure they pick up the structure of the stab. >> You'll be fine. >> >> They belt in to the seats pretty well too when you do gross weight >> testing. We would duct tape several together to make them body-size. >> Then, make REALLY sure it's well secured so that Sal doesn't slump forward >> on the controls... >> >> --Dave >> >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Craig Rufi wrote: >> >>> Hi All' >>> I plan on reducing the load on the tie down by adding about 80 lbs in >>> the baggage compartment. I also was thinking of 40 lbs on either side of >>> the vertical stabilizer. >>> Thoughts? >>> I'm getting closer to the finish line! >>> >>> Craig Rufi >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Bob Turner >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I'd say you're both right, in some circumstances.(!) >>>> If you're talking about the structure (tailcone, spars, etc) then the >>>> ideal physics analysis is very good. At 45 degrees, 71% (actually one over >>>> the square root of two) of the force is vertical, and an equal amount is >>>> horizontal. >>>> But if you're talking about pulling out the threads, it is more >>>> complicated. The horizontal force will cause the bolt to pivot slightly, >>>> "locking" the bottom and top of the bolt deeper into the threads, where >>>> they are thicker, and thus have a lot more strength in tension. To >>>> visualize this, imagine that the tail had been tapped oversize, so the >>>> threads of the bolt just barely grabbed. >>>> >>>> -------- >>>> Bob Turner >>>> RV-10 QB >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Read this topic online here: >>>> >>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439382#439382 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ========== >>>> -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 >>>> ========== >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> * >>> >>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >>> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com> >>> _blank">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 >> >> * >> >> > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 15, 2015
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: Craig Rufi <craigr60(at)gmail.com>
We are on the same page! Thanks, Craig Rufi On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:21 AM, David Saylor wrote: > Kind of. I mean make sure you have contact with the spars and as many > ribs as possible. And yes, as close to the root as you can. --D > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Craig Rufi wrote: > >> Thanks Dave, >> When you say,"pick up the structure of the stabilizer" I'm taking that to >> mean close to the vertical stabilizer, and balanced on both sides. There >> the ribs are closer together and a stronger surface for the bags to rest on. >> >> My pool also needs a little more salt too:-)) >> >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:57 AM, David Saylor >> wrote: >> >>> I use bags of water softener salt to weight the tail and other things. >>> The plastic 40# bags are tough, and convenient. Find the brand with built >>> in handles. Use some care to make sure they don't slide off when the angle >>> changes, and of course make sure they pick up the structure of the stab. >>> You'll be fine. >>> >>> They belt in to the seats pretty well too when you do gross weight >>> testing. We would duct tape several together to make them body-size. >>> Then, make REALLY sure it's well secured so that Sal doesn't slump forward >>> on the controls... >>> >>> --Dave >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Craig Rufi wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All' >>>> I plan on reducing the load on the tie down by adding about 80 lbs in >>>> the baggage compartment. I also was thinking of 40 lbs on either side of >>>> the vertical stabilizer. >>>> Thoughts? >>>> I'm getting closer to the finish line! >>>> >>>> Craig Rufi >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Bob Turner >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'd say you're both right, in some circumstances.(!) >>>>> If you're talking about the structure (tailcone, spars, etc) then the >>>>> ideal physics analysis is very good. At 45 degrees, 71% (actually one over >>>>> the square root of two) of the force is vertical, and an equal amount is >>>>> horizontal. >>>>> But if you're talking about pulling out the threads, it is more >>>>> complicated. The horizontal force will cause the bolt to pivot slightly, >>>>> "locking" the bottom and top of the bolt deeper into the threads, where >>>>> they are thicker, and thus have a lot more strength in tension. To >>>>> visualize this, imagine that the tail had been tapped oversize, so the >>>>> threads of the bolt just barely grabbed. >>>>> >>>>> -------- >>>>> Bob Turner >>>>> RV-10 QB >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Read this topic online here: >>>>> >>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439382#439382 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ========== >>>>> -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 >>>>> ========== >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> * >>>> >>>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >>>> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com> >>>> _blank">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 >>> >>> * >>> >>> >> * >> >> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com> >> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> >> * >> >> > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 15, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
Be very careful with bags of salt. They are typically abused in their delivery to retail store shelves, and frequently have small tears that let salt out. Extremely corrosive to your aircraft. It doesn't take but a bit of powder out of one of those bags. And they are heavy enough it doesn't take much abrasion to put a small, barely noticeable hole in a bag. I've seen corrosion in car trunks and pickup beds from that. I agree with Tim, either put it all in baggage compartment, or put some plywood or similar on stabilizer to spread load and prevent damage there. Sand bags or collapsible water jugs are preferable. On 3/15/2015 11:30 AM, Craig Rufi wrote: > We are on the same page! > Thanks, > Craig Rufi > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:21 AM, David Saylor > wrote: > > Kind of. I mean make sure you have contact with the spars and as > many ribs as possible. And yes, as close to the root as you can. --D > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Craig Rufi > wrote: > > Thanks Dave, > When you say,"pick up the structure of the stabilizer" I'm > taking that to mean close to the vertical stabilizer, and > balanced on both sides. There the ribs are closer together and > a stronger surface for the bags to rest on. > > My pool also needs a little more salt too:-)) > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:57 AM, David Saylor > > wrote: > > I use bags of water softener salt to weight the tail and > other things. The plastic 40# bags are tough, and > convenient. Find the brand with built in handles. Use > some care to make sure they don't slide off when the angle > changes, and of course make sure they pick up the > structure of the stab. You'll be fine. > > They belt in to the seats pretty well too when you do > gross weight testing. We would duct tape several together > to make them body-size. Then, make REALLY sure it's well > secured so that Sal doesn't slump forward on the controls... > > --Dave > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Craig Rufi > > wrote: > > Hi All' > I plan on reducing the load on the tie down by adding > about 80 lbs in the baggage compartment. I also was > thinking of 40 lbs on either side of the vertical > stabilizer. > Thoughts? > I'm getting closer to the finish line! > > Craig Rufi > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Bob Turner > > wrote: > > > > > I'd say you're both right, in some circumstances.(!) > If you're talking about the structure (tailcone, > spars, etc) then the ideal physics analysis is > very good. At 45 degrees, 71% (actually one over > the square root of two) of the force is vertical, > and an equal amount is horizontal. > But if you're talking about pulling out the > threads, it is more complicated. The horizontal > force will cause the bolt to pivot slightly, > "locking" the bottom and top of the bolt deeper > into the threads, where they are thicker, and thus > have a lot more strength in tension. To visualize > this, imagine that the tail had been tapped > oversize, so the threads of the bolt just barely > grabbed. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439382#439382 > > > ========== > -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 > ========== > > > * > > get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com> > _blank">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 > > * > > > * > > get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com> > _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > * > > > * > > get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > tp://forums.matronics.com > _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > * > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Has Low cost ADS-B arrived?
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Mar 15, 2015
AirMike wrote: > My intuition tells me that this unit resides in the same squishy area as IFR navigation equipment for EAB aircraft, and my guess is that if you put one of these in your EAB aircraft, that there will be no squealing from the powers that be. After all we are not exactly (for the most part) flying high performance turbine equipment. Modern GPS - even in my I-Pad updates way faster than the FAA's antiquated mode C - transponder system. Kudos to these guys for getting this on the shelf for us to meet the 2020 deadline. :D You'll get no argument from me that the specs are way too stringent. But remember the FAA doesn't care about us - they do care about an airliner hitting us. So IMHO there will be no relaxation on the specs.(IF they did relax them, now, the companies that already are in the market with TSO'd boxes would cry foul - and they'd have a point). And btw, there's nothing "squishy" about IFR navigation equipment. Your operating limitations require you to follow the same 91.205 rules as the normally certified aircraft. I applaud Navworks for trying to bring the cost down, and in fact this is a very competitive price even without a position source. But I won't believe "ready for 2020" until I see someone say in writing that the built in gps meets 91.227. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439419#439419 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Mar 15, 2015
woxofswa wrote: > >> > Unless your donuts have compressed EXACTLY the same amount as the thickness of the doubler you are going to have to make minute adjustments to get the bolt to slide in easily. In my case I had to ease the wheel back down to the floor to get just a few pounds of pressure and viola, the bolt slid right in. I was able to have one hand on the jack release and the other inserting the bolt. You can't do that from the back. My thinking is that the donuts will compress some with time, so I want a substantial pre-load on them now, not just a few pounds. I un-jacked the plane, then put my shoulder under the tail and picked it up (maybe 80 lbs there?) and slid a stand under the tail, then added one more (2 total) washer and I could just get the bolt in. Was this overkill? Or too much pre-load? -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439420#439420 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 15, 2015
That is a good question and I don't know the answer. I know that the goal is "no slop" and that you are limited to a maximum of three washers. It seems possible that the more pre-load, the more the donuts compress over time, but I'm not sure. I would bet that compression memory is a combination of both time and pressure with a little pressure over a long time having the same effect as high pressure for short bursts. It also seems to me that the act of compression itself is what absorbs energy and therefore a higher pre-compression could mean less potential energy absorption capability in the system. I have heard that they are expensive to replace. Bob Turner wrote: > > woxofswa wrote: > > >> > > Unless your donuts have compressed EXACTLY the same amount as the thickness of the doubler you are going to have to make minute adjustments to get the bolt to slide in easily. In my case I had to ease the wheel back down to the floor to get just a few pounds of pressure and viola, the bolt slid right in. I was able to have one hand on the jack release and the other inserting the bolt. You can't do that from the back. > > My thinking is that the donuts will compress some with time, so I want a substantial pre-load on them now, not just a few pounds. > I un-jacked the plane, then put my shoulder under the tail and picked it up (maybe 80 lbs there?) and slid a stand under the tail, then added one more (2 total) washer and I could just get the bolt in. > Was this overkill? Or too much pre-load? -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Flew May 10 2014 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439424#439424 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Blue Sky visors?
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Mar 15, 2015
I just installed a set this week. So far I am happy. They aren't Rosen's but they aren't Rosen's price either. -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Flew May 10 2014 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439425#439425 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2015
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Has Low cost ADS-B arrived?
If this box is anything like their ADS600B, and I'm told it is almost identical if not identical, other than it doesn't have an ARINC module, then I understand why they can say it's 2020 ready. The ADS600B uses a modular GPS, and you can either buy it with a non-certified GPS module (ADS600B) or buy a certified module for it (ADS600BG). This means that upgrading the GPS itself is just a snap in change. The certified module isn't even that expensive for those who want it now. The certified module is a TSO c145 module. If the module that it comes with is not that certified module, then I'm sure the reason they call it "ready" is that it takes just a module change and you can meet the rule. At the price they're selling it at, it's still a bargain compared to most any other option for us EAB's. Personally, I don't care if the certified world is gnashing their teeth over it. It's not OUR fault that they don't have the motivation to build their own plane. Also, being an electronic device, I'm sure we'll see all units from most manufacturers get cheaper and cheaper over time, just as EFIS's have. Those who want to sell, will have to compete. NavWorX just pushed out their cheaper option first. At the price we can get it for now, there's no reason not to. And I say all this after spending more than DOUBLE the price of this new 600EXP, when I bought my ADS600B for the RV-14 project less than a month before they released this new model. Coulda, shoulda, woulda... But hey, I'll be equipped. Tim On 3/15/2015 2:31 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > > AirMike wrote: >> My intuition tells me that this unit resides in the same squishy >> area as IFR navigation equipment for EAB aircraft, and my guess is >> that if you put one of these in your EAB aircraft, that there will >> be no squealing from the powers that be. After all we are not >> exactly (for the most part) flying high performance turbine >> equipment. Modern GPS - even in my I-Pad updates way faster than >> the FAA's antiquated mode C - transponder system. Kudos to these >> guys for getting this on the shelf for us to meet the 2020 >> deadline. :D > > You'll get no argument from me that the specs are way too stringent. > But remember the FAA doesn't care about us - they do care about an > airliner hitting us. So IMHO there will be no relaxation on the > specs.(IF they did relax them, now, the companies that already are in > the market with TSO'd boxes would cry foul - and they'd have a > point). And btw, there's nothing "squishy" about IFR navigation > equipment. Your operating limitations require you to follow the same > 91.205 rules as the normally certified aircraft. I applaud Navworks > for trying to bring the cost down, and in fact this is a very > competitive price even without a position source. But I won't believe > "ready for 2020" until I see someone say in writing that the built in > gps meets 91.227. > > -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Has Low cost ADS-B arrived?
Yeah, after I spent more than that for my Dynon ADS-B In unit on top of 3 times that for Dynon/Trig 1090ES ADS-B out, but I am all set to take the RV up into the flight levels or out of the country, yada yada yada. I'm just happy for the guys that can barely manage a used RV-4 or other low cost plane, that they won't have to have 25% of the value of the plane in a transponder/GPS combo. On 3/16/2015 7:02 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > And I say all this after spending more than DOUBLE > the price of this new 600EXP, when I bought my ADS600B > for the RV-14 project less than a month before they > released this new model. Coulda, shoulda, woulda... > But hey, I'll be equipped. > Tim > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Subject: Re: Has Low cost ADS-B arrived?
Date: Mar 16, 2015
I'm with Tim on this. The guts of the EXP is the same as their certified box, but the antenna connectors are different and it's a DB9 instead of a DB37, and you no longer have to hook up to a serial port to program it. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad > On Mar 16, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > If this box is anything like their ADS600B, and I'm told it > is almost identical if not identical, other than it doesn't > have an ARINC module, then I understand why they can say > it's 2020 ready. The ADS600B uses a modular GPS, > and you can either buy it with a non-certified GPS module > (ADS600B) or buy a certified module for it (ADS600BG). > This means that upgrading the GPS itself is just a snap > in change. The certified module isn't even that expensive > for those who want it now. The certified module is a TSO c145 > module. > > If the module that it comes with is not that certified > module, then I'm sure the reason they call it "ready" is > that it takes just a module change and you can meet > the rule. At the price they're selling it at, it's > still a bargain compared to most any other option for > us EAB's. > > Personally, I don't care if the certified world > is gnashing their teeth over it. It's not OUR fault > that they don't have the motivation to build their > own plane. Also, being an electronic device, I'm sure > we'll see all units from most manufacturers get cheaper > and cheaper over time, just as EFIS's have. Those who > want to sell, will have to compete. NavWorX just > pushed out their cheaper option first. At the price > we can get it for now, there's no reason not to. > And I say all this after spending more than DOUBLE > the price of this new 600EXP, when I bought my ADS600B > for the RV-14 project less than a month before they > released this new model. Coulda, shoulda, woulda... > But hey, I'll be equipped. > Tim > > > > >> On 3/15/2015 2:31 PM, Bob Turner wrote: >> >> >> >> AirMike wrote: >>> My intuition tells me that this unit resides in the same squishy >>> area as IFR navigation equipment for EAB aircraft, and my guess is >>> that if you put one of these in your EAB aircraft, that there will >>> be no squealing from the powers that be. After all we are not >>> exactly (for the most part) flying high performance turbine >>> equipment. Modern GPS - even in my I-Pad updates way faster than >>> the FAA's antiquated mode C - transponder system. Kudos to these >>> guys for getting this on the shelf for us to meet the 2020 >>> deadline. :D >> >> You'll get no argument from me that the specs are way too stringent. >> But remember the FAA doesn't care about us - they do care about an >> airliner hitting us. So IMHO there will be no relaxation on the >> specs.(IF they did relax them, now, the companies that already are in >> the market with TSO'd boxes would cry foul - and they'd have a >> point). And btw, there's nothing "squishy" about IFR navigation >> equipment. Your operating limitations require you to follow the same >> 91.205 rules as the normally certified aircraft. I applaud Navworks >> for trying to bring the cost down, and in fact this is a very >> competitive price even without a position source. But I won't believe >> "ready for 2020" until I see someone say in writing that the built in >> gps meets 91.227. >> >> -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2015
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Has Low cost ADS-B arrived?
Does it get preprogrammed by them at the factory then? I wonder what pins they use on that DB9... Assuming Power Ground Serial + out Serial Gnd Altitude Encoder I wonder if there is still ... Transponder Control Serial + Transponder control serial GND That leaves only 2 more pins. Maybe Transponder suppression and one more? What connector did they use on the antenna then, SMA? Thanks Jesse, for the info. I knew the insides were the same but didn't know about the externals. Tim On 3/16/2015 9:51 AM, Jesse Saint wrote: > > I'm with Tim on this. The guts of the EXP is the same as their certified box, but the antenna connectors are different and it's a DB9 instead of a DB37, and you no longer have to hook up to a serial port to program it. > > Jesse ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Has Low cost ADS-B arrived?
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2015
There are still the serial in and out for the communication with the EFIS. There is still the transponder control and ikarus alt. Only one power and ground wire. It gets programmed via Wifi with any number of ipad or other tablet console tool, is the understanding I got from Bill. The antenna is SMA, which I found out after I crimped a set of stinking TNC connectors for the future install. I hate those things. They charge as if they are solid gold. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 > On Mar 16, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > Does it get preprogrammed by them at the factory then? > I wonder what pins they use on that DB9... > > Assuming > > Power > Ground > Serial + out > Serial Gnd > Altitude Encoder > > I wonder if there is still ... > Transponder Control Serial + > Transponder control serial GND > > That leaves only 2 more pins. > Maybe Transponder suppression and one more? > > > What connector did they use on the antenna then, SMA? > > Thanks Jesse, for the info. I knew the insides were the same but > didn't know about the externals. > Tim > > > > On 3/16/2015 9:51 AM, Jesse Saint wrote: >> >> I'm with Tim on this. The guts of the EXP is the same as their certified box, but the antenna connectors are different and it's a DB9 instead of a DB37, and you no longer have to hook up to a serial port to program it. >> >> Jesse > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2015
Subject: Re: How to lift the nose wheel without an engine hoist
From: Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com>
Tim has it right--there's no need to mess around with putting stuff on the HS. Put a bunch of heavy stuff in the baggage compartment, and the tail gets really light. On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > Be very careful with bags of salt. They are typically abused in their > delivery to retail store shelves, and frequently have small tears that let > salt out. Extremely corrosive to your aircraft. It doesn't take but a bit > of powder out of one of those bags. And they are heavy enough it doesn't > take much abrasion to put a small, barely noticeable hole in a bag. I've > seen corrosion in car trunks and pickup beds from that. > I agree with Tim, either put it all in baggage compartment, or put some > plywood or similar on stabilizer to spread load and prevent damage there. > Sand bags or collapsible water jugs are preferable. > > On 3/15/2015 11:30 AM, Craig Rufi wrote: > >> We are on the same page! >> Thanks, >> Craig Rufi >> >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:21 AM, David Saylor > > wrote: >> >> Kind of. I mean make sure you have contact with the spars and as >> many ribs as possible. And yes, as close to the root as you can. --D >> >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Craig Rufi > > wrote: >> >> Thanks Dave, >> When you say,"pick up the structure of the stabilizer" I'm >> taking that to mean close to the vertical stabilizer, and >> balanced on both sides. There the ribs are closer together and >> a stronger surface for the bags to rest on. >> >> My pool also needs a little more salt too:-)) >> >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:57 AM, David Saylor >> > wrote: >> >> I use bags of water softener salt to weight the tail and >> other things. The plastic 40# bags are tough, and >> convenient. Find the brand with built in handles. Use >> some care to make sure they don't slide off when the angle >> changes, and of course make sure they pick up the >> structure of the stab. You'll be fine. >> >> They belt in to the seats pretty well too when you do >> gross weight testing. We would duct tape several together >> to make them body-size. Then, make REALLY sure it's well >> secured so that Sal doesn't slump forward on the controls... >> >> --Dave >> >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Craig Rufi >> > wrote: >> >> Hi All' >> I plan on reducing the load on the tie down by adding >> about 80 lbs in the baggage compartment. I also was >> thinking of 40 lbs on either side of the vertical >> stabilizer. >> Thoughts? >> I'm getting closer to the finish line! >> >> Craig Rufi >> >> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Bob Turner >> > > wrote: >> >> > > >> >> >> I'd say you're both right, in some circumstances.(!) >> If you're talking about the structure (tailcone, >> spars, etc) then the ideal physics analysis is >> very good. At 45 degrees, 71% (actually one over >> the square root of two) of the force is vertical, >> and an equal amount is horizontal. >> But if you're talking about pulling out the >> threads, it is more complicated. The horizontal >> force will cause the bolt to pivot slightly, >> "locking" the bottom and top of the bolt deeper >> into the threads, where they are thicker, and thus >> have a lot more strength in tension. To visualize >> this, imagine that the tail had been tapped >> oversize, so the threads of the bolt just barely >> grabbed. >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/ >> viewtopic.php?p=439382#439382 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========== >> -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 >> ========== >> >> >> >> >> * >> >> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com> >> _blank">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 >> >> * >> >> >> * >> >> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com> >> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> >> * >> >> >> * >> >> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> tp://forums.matronics.com >> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> >> * >> >> >> * >> >> >> * >> > > -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New (Free) Aviation App
From: "gbrasch" <gmbrasch(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2015
I still get a lot of questions on how to download the Airport Courtesy Cars app on an iPad. So here are some simple instructions on how to do so. The app is approaching 1400 car listings with over 6,400 pilots that have downloaded the app. Glenn Go to the app store on your iPad, Click the search box and search for Airport Courtesy Cars, The search will not show any results, however when the search is complete a bar of menus will appear along the top of the page, The very first one on the left says "Ipad only", Click it to show a drop down menu, Choose "iPhone only" and Airport Courtesy Cars" will be displayed, and you can download the app. -------- Glenn Brasch RV-9A Flying 1952 Piper Tri-Pacer Medevac Helicopter Pilot (Ret) Tucson, Arizona Owner, www.RVairspace.com and "Airport Courtesy Cars" Smart Phone App www.RVairspace.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439556#439556 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: New MT 3 Blade Propeller For Sale
From: "mds4878" <mike.nova1973(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 18, 2015
I decided to go a different direction and now have a propeller for sale. MTV-12-B/193-53 MT 3 Blade Propeller With Governor for IO540. This is new and ready to put on your engine. 12,000 shipped. Mike 612-590-8604. -------- RV-10 #40447 Fuselage almost done. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439570#439570 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 20, 2015
Subject: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10
From: Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com>
Last time I bought a headset, I compared the Bose A20 ad Lightspeed Zulu 2, and the Zulu 2 had substantially worse Bose A20 noise reduction. I need a new headset again, so I bought the Zulu PFX and flew with it the other night. The PFX also has substantially worse noise reduction than the A20. My A20 isn't quite comfortable on long flights, which I why I keep trying alternatives. Has anyone else compared the A20 to the Lightspeed headsets head-to-head in the RV-10 and have a similar result? People generally seem to prefer one over the other slightly, but the difference is huge in my experience, which makes me think something else is going on (or I'm just weird). -Rob -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 20, 2015
From: David Clifford <davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10
If you are looking for comfort and quiet, you can't beat a set of Quiet Technologies Halo's with properly inserted ear tips. I also use a pair of Zulu and Zulu 2 and like both very much. No experience with Bose though. David Clifford N959RV ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Kochman" <rv10rob(at)gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 12:24:44 PM Subject: RV10-List: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10 Last time I bought a headset, I compared the Bose A20 ad Lightspeed Zulu 2, and the Zulu 2 had substantially worse Bose A20 noise reduction. I need a new headset again, so I bought the Zulu PFX and flew with it the other night. The PFX also has substantially worse noise reduction than the A20. My A20 isn't quite comfortable on long flights, which I why I keep trying alternatives. Has anyone else compared the A20 to the Lightspeed headsets head-to-head in the RV-10 and have a similar result? People generally seem to prefer one over the other slightly, but the difference is huge in my experience, which makes me think something else is going on (or I'm just weird). -Rob -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10
Date: Mar 20, 2015
I did when I compared the A20 and the Bose X and the regular Zulu. Same conclusion. Tim > On Mar 20, 2015, at 11:24 AM, Rob Kochman wrote: > > Last time I bought a headset, I compared the Bose A20 ad Lightspeed Zulu 2 , and the Zulu 2 had substantially worse Bose A20 noise reduction. I need a new headset again, so I bought the Zulu PFX and flew with it the other nigh t. The PFX also has substantially worse noise reduction than the A20. My A 20 isn't quite comfortable on long flights, which I why I keep trying altern atives. > > Has anyone else compared the A20 to the Lightspeed headsets head-to-head i n the RV-10 and have a similar result? People generally seem to prefer one o ver the other slightly, but the difference is huge in my experience, which m akes me think something else is going on (or I'm just weird). > > -Rob > > -- > Rob Kochman > RV-10 Flying since March 2011 > Woodinville, WA > http://kochman.net/N819K > > 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: "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10
Date: Mar 20, 2015
I can tell you that I have a mid level headset and it is awful compared to the Bose and Lightspeed. I can also tell you that we love our LS Zulu 2 over the Bose. This is not at the level of the PFX to A20, I agree but the fit of the Bose makes it the last headset to be used on our =9310. So 4 out of 4 people in my plane prefer the fit of the Lightspeed over the Bose, but one tolerates it each time (if awesome headsets makes the situation =9Ctolerable=9D). Your questions was NR between the two, my response is that fit overrides any further NR that either gives us as we believe the Noise reduction of the Lightspeed is good enough to listen to movies without a need for higher volumes. We have not heard a significant difference between the two, so you may have a loose earpad or something else going on. That happened to us on the Lightspeed and a replacement earpad (wider for smaller head significantly fixed the noise issue) When riding motorcycles there are two excellent headsets (ARAI and SHOEI) one fits perfect; one just doesn=99t fit right at all, I think your situation may be the same, the Bose just fits your head better than the Lightspeed may, ad that is why you hear the significant difference. From: Rob Kochman Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 9:24 AM Subject: RV10-List: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10 Last time I bought a headset, I compared the Bose A20 ad Lightspeed Zulu 2, and the Zulu 2 had substantially worse Bose A20 noise reduction. I need a new headset again, so I bought the Zulu PFX and flew with it the other night. The PFX also has substantially worse noise reduction than the A20. My A20 isn't quite comfortable on long flights, which I why I keep trying alternatives. Has anyone else compared the A20 to the Lightspeed headsets head-to-head in the RV-10 and have a similar result? People generally seem to prefer one over the other slightly, but the difference is huge in my experience, which makes me think something else is going on (or I'm just weird). -Rob -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 20, 2015
Subject: Re: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10
From: Ed Kranz <ed.kranz(at)gmail.com>
I know you're specifically asking about the Zulu vs the Bose, but I did a direct comparison between the QT Halos (passive noise canceling) and the Bose A20s. I had the bose over one ear, and the halos in the other. The halos were noticeably quieter. However, the are more effort to put on, and I wouldn't want to use them for guests in the plane. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Rob Kochman wrote: > Last time I bought a headset, I compared the Bose A20 ad Lightspeed Zulu > 2, and the Zulu 2 had substantially worse Bose A20 noise reduction. I need > a new headset again, so I bought the Zulu PFX and flew with it the other > night. The PFX also has substantially worse noise reduction than the A20. > My A20 isn't quite comfortable on long flights, which I why I keep trying > alternatives. > > Has anyone else compared the A20 to the Lightspeed headsets head-to-head > in the RV-10 and have a similar result? People generally seem to prefer > one over the other slightly, but the difference is huge in my experience, > which makes me think something else is going on (or I'm just weird). > > -Rob > > -- > Rob Kochman > RV-10 Flying since March 2011 > Woodinville, WA > http://kochman.net/N819K > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10
Date: Mar 20, 2015
I have used Halos, Dave Clark, Bose, and light speed. I fly everything except the Halo (I sold mine because they were harder to get on and off). I think the Bose is the best, with the light speed being just about the same. My wife prefers her Halo. She got custom ear molds. I think it is a personal preference thing..try them all and pick the ones that work best for you. Rene' 801-721-6080 From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed Kranz Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 12:21 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10 I know you're specifically asking about the Zulu vs the Bose, but I did a direct comparison between the QT Halos (passive noise canceling) and the Bose A20s. I had the bose over one ear, and the halos in the other. The halos were noticeably quieter. However, the are more effort to put on, and I wouldn't want to use them for guests in the plane. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Rob Kochman wrote: Last time I bought a headset, I compared the Bose A20 ad Lightspeed Zulu 2, and the Zulu 2 had substantially worse Bose A20 noise reduction. I need a new headset again, so I bought the Zulu PFX and flew with it the other night. The PFX also has substantially worse noise reduction than the A20. My A20 isn't quite comfortable on long flights, which I why I keep trying alternatives. Has anyone else compared the A20 to the Lightspeed headsets head-to-head in the RV-10 and have a similar result? People generally seem to prefer one over the other slightly, but the difference is huge in my experience, which makes me think something else is going on (or I'm just weird). -Rob -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List tp://forums.matronics.com _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 20, 2015
Subject: Re: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10
From: Bob Condrey <condreyb(at)gmail.com>
For me personally, either the Zulu or Bose worked well. For my wife however, the Bose was substantially better. Turns out that the Zulu didn't seal as well as the Bose along the rear part of her jaw and that caused the ANR not to work as well. That being said, the only way you're going to know is to try them in person. Sorry, just my experience. Bob On Friday, March 20, 2015, Rob Kochman wrote: > Last time I bought a headset, I compared the Bose A20 ad Lightspeed Zulu > 2, and the Zulu 2 had substantially worse Bose A20 noise reduction. I need > a new headset again, so I bought the Zulu PFX and flew with it the other > night. The PFX also has substantially worse noise reduction than the A20. > My A20 isn't quite comfortable on long flights, which I why I keep trying > alternatives. > > Has anyone else compared the A20 to the Lightspeed headsets head-to-head > in the RV-10 and have a similar result? People generally seem to prefer > one over the other slightly, but the difference is huge in my experience, > which makes me think something else is going on (or I'm just weird). > > -Rob > > -- > Rob Kochman > RV-10 Flying since March 2011 > Woodinville, WA > http://kochman.net/N819K > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 20, 2015
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10
Agreed. Back when the original Zulu and Bose X were the top of the line, we spent several hours at Sportys going back and forth between them. Better comfort and slightly lighter weight became deciding choice for the Bose. One of these days I will compare current models. While Bose support has been okay, Lightspeed has much better reputation. On 3/20/2015 2:10 PM, Bob Condrey wrote: > For me personally, either the Zulu or Bose worked well. For my wife > however, the Bose was substantially better. Turns out that the Zulu > didn't seal as well as the Bose along the rear part of her jaw and > that caused the ANR not to work as well. That being said, the only way > you're going to know is to try them in person. Sorry, just my experience. > > Bob > > On Friday, March 20, 2015, Rob Kochman > wrote: > > Last time I bought a headset, I compared the Bose A20 ad > Lightspeed Zulu 2, and the Zulu 2 had substantially worse Bose A20 > noise reduction. I need a new headset again, so I bought the Zulu > PFX and flew with it the other night. The PFX also has > substantially worse noise reduction than the A20. My A20 isn't > quite comfortable on long flights, which I why I keep trying > alternatives. > > Has anyone else compared the A20 to the Lightspeed headsets > head-to-head in the RV-10 and have a similar result? People > generally seem to prefer one over the other slightly, but the > difference is huge in my experience, which makes me think > something else is going on (or I'm just weird). > > -Rob > > -- > Rob Kochman > RV-10 Flying since March 2011 > Woodinville, WA > http://kochman.net/N819K > > * > > get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > tp://forums.matronics.com > _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > * > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel Canopy Covers
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Mar 20, 2015
Hi So, I picked up a travel cover from Flightline. First off, I was pretty amazed at how light it was. I used to have a Bruce's cover for my PA28 and it was very substantial and heavy. Abbey's cover is marvelously light. It seems to be very well made. I like the velcro straps that go around the steps. Thank you to everyone who weighed in with advice. Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439694#439694 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 20, 2015
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Travel Canopy Covers
Post a picture when you get one!!! Linn On 3/20/2015 9:24 PM, kearney wrote: > > Hi > > So, I picked up a travel cover from Flightline. First off, I was pretty amazed at how light it was. I used to have a Bruce's cover for my PA28 and it was very substantial and heavy. Abbey's cover is marvelously light. It seems to be very well made. I like the velcro straps that go around the steps. > > Thank you to everyone who weighed in with advice. > > Cheers > > Les > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439694#439694 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Travel Canopy Covers
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Mar 22, 2015
Hi Again Attached re a couple of pix of the Flightline Interiors travel canopy. In the second I have folded it back so you can see the black back of the material. It is not a two layer cover, rather t appears to be a synthetic material, one side being silver and the other being black. The cover is very light and folds up into a small bag. It can't weight more than a pound or two. It is completely impervious to light and appears to be waterproof. I like that it has 4 sets of retaining straps - two in the front, one that attaches to the step and one at end. It looks like it can be made quite secure without chaffing. My Bruce's cover on my PA28 had only two straps, the rear one having a chaffing problem - it wore through my paint albeit after 18+ years outside. The cost was $250 USD plus shipping. Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439725#439725 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_3704_114.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_3703_196.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New (Free) Aviation App
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Mar 22, 2015
It came right up for me, straight-forward download. -------- #40572 Phase One complete in 2011 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439735#439735 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10
From: "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com>
Date: Mar 22, 2015
As soon as I saw that monstrous control box on the PFX, I already made up my mind that they sucked. It looks like the pedal from my grandmother's sewing machine, complete with the proper looking cable... Come on, electronics are getting smaller all the time, but the PFXs control box just doubled or even tripled up. Guess they need room for the extra batteries to talk to the iPad and other "cool" nonsensical stuff. I'm very happy with my Bose A20, but on longer flights I prefer the Halos. A bit of a pain putting it on, but there's no head clamping, and it does sound clearer than the Bose. For what it's worth, my friend recently bought a defective PFX, sent it back to Lightspeed, and instead of giving him a new one, they repaired it and sent it back to him... he's the proud owner of a pair of AKGs now. -------- Lenny N311LZ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439754#439754 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Geoff Combs" <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com>
Subject: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10
Date: Mar 23, 2015
I have 2 pairs A10 and 2 pairs A20=99s. The A20=99s are better than the 10=9Ds. I have tried Zulu 2=99s a couple times but always liked the Bose. So we did a direct comparison in another RV-10 and they had Lightspeed Zulu 2=99s. We were flying along for about 20 minutes. He with his Zulu 2 and Myself with the A20. We swapped and flew for 10 minutes or so and we then gave our thoughts. We both felt the Bose was superior to the lightspeed. AS for comfort I dislike the Zulu=99s it=99s just not comfortable for me. I can fly 6-7 hours with the Bose and not even realize I have them on. I think the fit and Comfort for each individual is different but as for noise reduction and quality I feel the Bose are superior. As for the service from Bose they have been excellent. I take my in at Oshkosh every year and they have check them and replaced items at no cost that they feel Need attention. With my A20=99s on and no sunglasses you can almost not hear my engine at cruise they are that quite. It took me a while to get use to that. FWIW Buy what you want and feel comfortable in. They all work Geoff Combs From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kochman Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 12:25 PM Subject: RV10-List: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10 Last time I bought a headset, I compared the Bose A20 ad Lightspeed Zulu 2, and the Zulu 2 had substantially worse Bose A20 noise reduction. I need a new headset again, so I bought the Zulu PFX and flew with it the other night. The PFX also has substantially worse noise reduction than the A20. My A20 isn't quite comfortable on long flights, which I why I keep trying alternatives. Has anyone else compared the A20 to the Lightspeed headsets head-to-head in the RV-10 and have a similar result? People generally seem to prefer one over the other slightly, but the difference is huge in my experience, which makes me think something else is going on (or I'm just weird). -Rob -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 23, 2015
Subject: Re: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10
From: Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com>
Thanks, everyone. I just ordered the AKG and will try that, then make a decision. I actually already have a set of QT Halos. Very comfortable, but the noise reduction isn't nearly as good as my A20s. The in-the-ear design is ineffective in blocking low frequencies, in my experience. -Rob On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Geoff Combs wrote: > I have 2 pairs A10 and 2 pairs A20=99s. The A20=99s are bette r than the 10=9Ds. > I have tried Zulu 2=99s a couple times but always liked the Bose. > > So we did a direct comparison in another RV-10 and they had Lightspeed > Zulu 2=99s. We were flying along for about 20 minutes. He with his Zulu 2 and > Myself with the A20. We swapped and flew for 10 minutes or so and we then > gave our thoughts. We both felt the Bose was superior to the lightspeed. AS > for comfort I dislike the Zulu=99s it=99s just not comfortabl e for me. I can > fly 6-7 hours with the Bose and not even realize I have them on. I think > the fit and Comfort for each individual is different but as for noise > reduction and quality I feel the Bose are superior. As for the service fr om > Bose they have been excellent. I take my in at Oshkosh every year and the y > have check them and replaced items at no cost that they feel Need > attention. > > With my A20=99s on and no sunglasses you can almost not hear my eng ine at > cruise they are that quite. It took me a while to get use to that. > > FWIW > > Buy what you want and feel comfortable in. They all work > > > Geoff Combs > > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: > owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rob Kochman > *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 12:25 PM > *To:* rv10-list > *Subject:* RV10-List: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10 > > > Last time I bought a headset, I compared the Bose A20 ad Lightspeed Zulu > 2, and the Zulu 2 had substantially worse Bose A20 noise reduction. I ne ed > a new headset again, so I bought the Zulu PFX and flew with it the other > night. The PFX also has substantially worse noise reduction than the A20 . > My A20 isn't quite comfortable on long flights, which I why I keep trying > alternatives. > > > Has anyone else compared the A20 to the Lightspeed headsets head-to-head > in the RV-10 and have a similar result? People generally seem to prefer > one over the other slightly, but the difference is huge in my experience, > which makes me think something else is going on (or I'm just weird). > > > -Rob > > > -- > > Rob Kochman > RV-10 Flying since March 2011 > > Woodinville, WA > > http://kochman.net/N819K > > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List * > > *http://forums.matronics.com * > > *http://www.matronics.com/contribution * > > > * > =========== onics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> =========== =========== om/contribution> =========== > > * > > -- Rob Kochman RV-10 Flying since March 2011 Woodinville, WA http://kochman.net/N819K ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Lightspeed Zulu 2 and PFX in the RV-10
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Mar 23, 2015
Hi I have been meaning to wade in on this. IN my PA28 I used DC 13.4 that had the Headsets Inc ANR retrofit,. Something that I liked. Then at KOSH I tried the Clarity Aloft and the QuietTechnologies Halo headsets. I liked the Halos best as there were no wires going to the ears buds. They are very quiet as well. I have been using them for a couple of years and am happy with the choice. >From a comfort perspective, it is nice not having a thick padded band on top of my head. And they weight almost nothing at all so the comfort factor is high. This means I don't have to keep taking the buttons off the top of ball caps as well! If you are at KOSH, I suggest you demo a pair at the QT booth. The halo ear buds take a bit of practice to get the fit right but I found them well worth the effort. Cheers Les PS: I have never tried the Zulus or Bose headsets - they were a bit too spendy for me. YMMV Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439794#439794 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Larry Rosen <n205en(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 23, 2015
Subject: Rear Heat SCAT Tube Routing
After a very long break, I have started working on building my RV10 again. I am working on fixing some of the things I don't like about how that came out. One is how the rear heat scat tube is routed around my fuel valve and over the wing spar. I have two possible solutions. One is to reduce to a 1 or 1-1/2" tube. Those that fly in the cold north, do you think you would still get enough heat to the back passengers with a 1" tube? The second is to construct a fiberglass duct to route around the problem areas. Is the hot air from the heater valve hot enough to cause problems with a duct constructed of glass and west epoxy? Larry RV10 #40356 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rear Heat SCAT Tube Routing
From: P Reid <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Date: Mar 23, 2015
Larry The heat is plenty hot that when we use it it has been about 1-10th of open, so smaller tubing would work fine I have a Fiberglass plenum over my engine and there is no issue, so I can not imagine it would be an issue. I used Aeropoxy slow cure and that is rated for hotter temps, sure west marine has a higher temp resin as well. Best of success Sent from my iPad > On Mar 23, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Larry Rosen wrote: > > > After a very long break, I have started working on building my RV10 again. I am working on fixing some of the things I don't like about how that came out. One is how the rear heat scat tube is routed around my fuel valve and over the wing spar. > > I have two possible solutions. > One is to reduce to a 1 or 1-1/2" tube. Those that fly in the cold north, do you think you would still get enough heat to the back passengers with a 1" tube? > > The second is to construct a fiberglass duct to route around the problem areas. Is the hot air from the heater valve hot enough to cause problems with a duct constructed of glass and west epoxy? > > Larry > RV10 #40356 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rear Heat SCAT Tube Routing
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Mar 24, 2015
Larry, I used a 1.75 inch scat tube from Aircraft Spruce - it works fine. John -------- #40572 Phase One complete in 2011 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439823#439823 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Rear Heat SCAT Tube Routing
Date: Mar 24, 2015
Larry, I used a 1.5" hose from the fire wall to the rear connector, with homebrew reducers at each end to make the transition between 2" and 1.5". I did this as it made routing the hose much easier. Assuming you are doing the stock Vetterman exhaust there is an amazing amount of heat available for the cabin. Considering this, I installed a 3/4" diameter restrictor in the rear baffle heat muff hose connectors to reduce the amount of air going to the heat muff. As I would never use that much heat, I figured that the other 90% of flying where the heat is off I'd rather have that air cooling the engine instead of bypassing it. Now on the coldest days I have the rear heat half open and the front heat cracked open or shut. One other point - I view the per plans cabin heat valve location as problematic. On the hottest day you have hot air off the heat muffs being directed back at the engine - right at the mechanical fuel pump. My fix for this was to install a piece of Koolmat between the firewall cabin heat boxes (holes cut out for the box air exit) such that the mat extends over the top of the boxes and then down over the front of the boxes. The result is when the cabin heat valves are shut, the dumped hot air is directed down toward the bottom of the cowl, and the conductive heat from the boxes to the firewall is reduced. This is the Koolmat product: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/koolmat.php?clickkey=261602 I'm happy with how it all worked out. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Rosen Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 10:33 PM Subject: RV10-List: Rear Heat SCAT Tube Routing After a very long break, I have started working on building my RV10 again. I am working on fixing some of the things I don't like about how that came out. One is how the rear heat scat tube is routed around my fuel valve and over the wing spar. I have two possible solutions. One is to reduce to a 1 or 1-1/2" tube. Those that fly in the cold north, do you think you would still get enough heat to the back passengers with a 1" tube? The second is to construct a fiberglass duct to route around the problem areas. Is the hot air from the heater valve hot enough to cause problems with a duct constructed of glass and west epoxy? Larry RV10 #40356 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Larry Rosen <n205en(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 24, 2015
Subject: Re: Rear Heat SCAT Tube Routing
> > I used a 1.5" hose from the fire wall to the rear connector, with homebrew > reducers at each end to make the transition between 2" and 1.5". I did this > as it made routing the hose much easier. It sounds like 1" tubing would provide more than enough heat. I may homebrew or just use these reducers from planeinovations <http://www.planeinnovations.com/scat-adapters.html> It will depend if I want to spend time or money. > One other point - I view the per plans cabin heat valve location as > problematic. On the hottest day you have hot air off the heat muffs being > directed back at the engine - right at the mechanical fuel pump. My fix for > this was to install a piece of Koolmat between the firewall cabin heat boxes > (holes cut out for the box air exit) such that the mat extends over the top > of the boxes and then down over the front of the boxes. The result is when > the cabin heat valves are shut, the dumped hot air is directed down toward > the bottom of the cowl, and the conductive heat from the boxes to the > firewall is reduced. This is the Koolmat product: > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/koolmat.php?clickkey=261602 > I am having a hard time visualizing what you installed. Are you using the koolmat to direct the hot air down instead of towards the engine. In this case the koolmat is working as a plenum and not insulating the fwf. Larry ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rear Heat SCAT Tube Routing
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Mar 24, 2015
I visualize this as the cool mat being in an inverted U shape. One side against the firewall for insulation; the other hanging down a few inches from the firewall to direct the hot air down. I did half this: put silicon baffle material under the box to insulate it from the firewall. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=439835#439835 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Rear Heat SCAT Tube Routing
Date: Mar 24, 2015
Larry, I looked for a photo but only found one when the fuselage was upside down (attached). So if you can visualize, the flap that is hanging down would hang over the top of the boxes and scat hoses when upright. You can see the round notches cut to lay over the scat hoses. The result is the dumped hot air from the cabin heat boxes is directed down toward the cowl exhaust area. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Rosen Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 2:33 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rear Heat SCAT Tube Routing > > I used a 1.5" hose from the fire wall to the rear connector, with > homebrew reducers at each end to make the transition between 2" and > 1.5". I did this as it made routing the hose much easier. It sounds like 1" tubing would provide more than enough heat. I may homebrew or just use these reducers from planeinovations <http://www.planeinnovations.com/scat-adapters.html> It will depend if I want to spend time or money. > One other point - I view the per plans cabin heat valve location as > problematic. On the hottest day you have hot air off the heat muffs > being directed back at the engine - right at the mechanical fuel pump. > My fix for this was to install a piece of Koolmat between the firewall > cabin heat boxes (holes cut out for the box air exit) such that the > mat extends over the top of the boxes and then down over the front of > the boxes. The result is when the cabin heat valves are shut, the > dumped hot air is directed down toward the bottom of the cowl, and the > conductive heat from the boxes to the firewall is reduced. This is the Koolmat product: > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/koolmat.php?clickkey=261 > 602 > I am having a hard time visualizing what you installed. Are you using the koolmat to direct the hot air down instead of towards the engine. In this case the koolmat is working as a plenum and not insulating the fwf. Larry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 24, 2015
Subject: Re: Rear Heat SCAT Tube Routing
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
http://deemsrv10.com/album/Final%20Assembly/slides/DSC06932.html On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > Larry, > > I looked for a photo but only found one when the fuselage was upside down > (attached). So if you can visualize, the flap that is hanging down would > hang over the top of the boxes and scat hoses when upright. You can see > the > round notches cut to lay over the scat hoses. The result is the dumped hot > air from the cabin heat boxes is directed down toward the cowl exhaust > area. > > Carl > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Rosen > Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 2:33 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rear Heat SCAT Tube Routing > > > > > > I used a 1.5" hose from the fire wall to the rear connector, with > > homebrew reducers at each end to make the transition between 2" and > > 1.5". I did this as it made routing the hose much easier. > It sounds like 1" tubing would provide more than enough heat. > > I may homebrew or just use these reducers from planeinovations > <http://www.planeinnovations.com/scat-adapters.html> It will depend if I > want to spend time or money. > > > One other point - I view the per plans cabin heat valve location as > > problematic. On the hottest day you have hot air off the heat muffs > > being directed back at the engine - right at the mechanical fuel pump. > > My fix for this was to install a piece of Koolmat between the firewall > > cabin heat boxes (holes cut out for the box air exit) such that the > > mat extends over the top of the boxes and then down over the front of > > the boxes. The result is when the cabin heat valves are shut, the > > dumped hot air is directed down toward the bottom of the cowl, and the > > conductive heat from the boxes to the firewall is reduced. This is the > Koolmat product: > > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/koolmat.php?clickkey=261 > > 602 > > > I am having a hard time visualizing what you installed. Are you using the > koolmat to direct the hot air down instead of towards the engine. > In this case the koolmat is working as a plenum and not insulating the fwf. > > Larry > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 24, 2015
Subject: Re: Rear Heat SCAT Tube Routing
From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
http://deemsrv10.com/album/Final%20Assembly/slides/DSC07074.html click forward for a few more pics On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Larry Rosen wrote: > > >> I used a 1.5" hose from the fire wall to the rear connector, with homebrew >> reducers at each end to make the transition between 2" and 1.5". I did >> this >> as it made routing the hose much easier. >> > It sounds like 1" tubing would provide more than enough heat. > > I may homebrew or just use these reducers from planeinovations < > http://www.planeinnovations.com/scat-adapters.html> It will depend if I > want to spend time or money. > > One other point - I view the per plans cabin heat valve location as >> problematic. On the hottest day you have hot air off the heat muffs being >> directed back at the engine - right at the mechanical fuel pump. My fix >> for >> this was to install a piece of Koolmat between the firewall cabin heat >> boxes >> (holes cut out for the box air exit) such that the mat extends over the >> top >> of the boxes and then down over the front of the boxes. The result is >> when >> the cabin heat valves are shut, the dumped hot air is directed down toward >> the bottom of the cowl, and the conductive heat from the boxes to the >> firewall is reduced. This is the Koolmat product: >> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/koolmat.php?clickkey=261602 >> >> I am having a hard time visualizing what you installed. Are you using > the koolmat to direct the hot air down instead of towards the engine. In > this case the koolmat is working as a plenum and not insulating the fwf. > > Larry > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Larry Rosen <n205en(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 24, 2015
Subject: Re: Rear Heat SCAT Tube Routing
Deems, 1" Scat tubing? I take it, no issues with the fiberglass in the heater line. Larry On 3/24/2015 4:18 PM, Deems Davis wrote: > http://deemsrv10.com/album/Final%20Assembly/slides/DSC07074.html > > click forward for a few more pics > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Larry Rosen > wrote: > > > > > > I used a 1.5" hose from the fire wall to the rear connector, > with homebrew > reducers at each end to make the transition between 2" and > 1.5". I did this > as it made routing the hose much easier. > > It sounds like 1" tubing would provide more than enough heat. > > I may homebrew or just use these reducers from planeinovations > <http://www.planeinnovations.com/scat-adapters.html> It will > depend if I want to spend time or money. > > One other point - I view the per plans cabin heat valve > location as > problematic. On the hottest day you have hot air off the heat > muffs being > directed back at the engine - right at the mechanical fuel > pump. My fix for > this was to install a piece of Koolmat between the firewall > cabin heat boxes > (holes cut out for the box air exit) such that the mat extends > over the top > of the boxes and then down over the front of the boxes. The > result is when > the cabin heat valves are shut, the dumped hot air is directed > down toward > the bottom of the cowl, and the conductive heat from the boxes > to the > firewall is reduced. This is the Koolmat product: > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/koolmat.php?clickkey=261602 > > I am having a hard time visualizing what you installed. Are you > using the koolmat to direct the hot air down instead of towards > the engine. In this case the koolmat is working as a plenum and > not insulating the fwf. > > Larry > > =================================== > -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 > =================================== > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Rear Heat SCAT Tube Routing
Date: Mar 24, 2015
My first 2=9D-1.5=9D scat reducer was made of fiberglass. The first time I turned on the rear heat it did off gas. I replaced it with one made of aluminum. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Rosen Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 5:37 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rear Heat SCAT Tube Routing Deems, 1" Scat tubing? I take it, no issues with the fiberglass in the heater line. Larry On 3/24/2015 4:18 PM, Deems Davis wrote: http://deemsrv10.com/album/Final%20Assembly/slides/DSC07074.html click forward for a few more pics


February 12, 2015 - March 24, 2015

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-kk