RV10-Archive.digest.vol-ks
October 15, 2015 - November 29, 2015
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Copperstate RV10 Nest 2015 |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
The show is Oct 22-24. If Myron follows previous protocol the lunch
would be Sat. Oct 24.
On 10/15/2015 6:48 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
> Myron, what date do you have in mind?
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=447993#447993
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Cheapest insurance policy yet --SkySmith |
Open Pilot:: *P; 750 TT; 25 MM*; Training Requirements: *N/A*;
Insurance Company: *Aerospace Ins Mgrs*from *10/17/2015* to *10/17/2016*;
Aircraft use: *P&B* (P&B is non-commercial); Aerobatic Use: *None*.
Coverages: *G&F*, *Full Coverage, Ground & Flight;* Deductibles: *$0* NIM &
*$0* IM/
Physical Damage: *$165,000* = $1,317.00
Liability per Occ: *$1,000,000* = $242.00
Liab Limited to *$100,000*/pass.
Medical *$5,000*/pass. = $25.00
Endorsements: = $0.00
Total Annual Premium = *$1,584.00*
Which we split two ways...not bad--I think my car is more!
Our first policy in 2007 was more than twice as much.
--Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Masys" <dmasys(at)u.washington.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight Report |
Agree with Tim and Jesse on the seating and preference for doing first
flights for others' RV aircraft alone; have done three of these recently and
it much reduces the cognitive load on the test pilot to do it alone.
For helping other pilots who are 'in the zone' to do their own first flight
there is a nice middle ground, and that is to put them in the left seat of
your own RV-10 (with you along in right seat) just before they loose the
surly bonds in their own bird. I did this for Brian Sutherland on the
morning of his first flight in his RV-10, going exactly the same route
orbiting the pattern that he intended to do, and having him do both the
takeoff and the landing as well as the cruise component. Even though my
avionics were a different brand than his, it helped with muscle memory and
eye-hand coordination to go fly a flight-proven RV-10 just before strapping
on his own for the first time.
Safe travels,
-Dan Masys
RV-10 N104LD 830 hrs
RV-12 N122LD 280 hrs
--------------
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: First Flight Report
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
I have to say that I think that the additional pilot program is kind of a
mixed bag too. There are to many factors to make a blanket statement as to
if I agree with everything, or not, or if I find it useful, and I actually
appreciate Jesse's position that he does the first flights alone. I'll give
you an example.
Pilot Builder has 125 hours, with almost nothing in RV-10's other than some
quick transition training, and many of the hours are not recent, as airplane
building took all the available time and money.
Other dude pilot, me, has over 1100 hours in RV10's.
With this in mind, who do you stick in the left seat, and who's going to be
the one at the controls?
From my perspective, I'd be happy to do a first flight FOR someone, but I'm
not all that interested in being subjected to the risk of being WITH
someone, if I'm not the one at the controls. Certainly, if something does
go wrong, a person would claim that they'd want the most experience, and
most current person at the controls, but in actual application, this isn't
necessarily what happens. What actually happens is that the guy with much
less experience wants to fly it, because he built it. Now, I do have great
respect for this, and I personally could not do it any other way. But I do
think that from a risk/safety perspective this isn't the best situation.
If I'm along in the plane, I want to be seated in the seat that I am most
comfortable to have the proper reactions and natural feel in, and I want to
be 100% responsible for the safety of the flight and getting the plane back
on the ground regardless of emergency situation. So while I am willing to
do a first flight, or even do a first flight with someone, I'm not willing
to just be a ride-along for a first flight unless the other person is
similar current and skilled...and honestly, if they were, they wouldn't be
asking me along in the
first place. And as far as having someone ride along
with you, I can tell you first hand that the most dangerous times I've had
probably, from an attention standpoint, are when you put two pilot friends
together in a cockpit. It's fine if you can strictly follow solid CRM, but
any extra chatter or communication just decreases safety.
So I think that the additional pilot program can actually promote safety,
but it may even do the opposite if not used properly, and builders need to
understand what they are asking for when they ask someone to go along as an
additional pilot.
Purely from the standpoint of the builder, sure, he may indeed be safer
having the highly qualified additional pilot with them, if they follow good
CRM, even with him at the controls. But, that isn't necessarily the safest
situation for that flight.
I'll have a first flight coming up again sometime in the next year, and I
would be the only one in the plane for that one, with or without the
program. I'd strongly encourage transition training for all people, and my
personal opinion is, if you get adequate transition training, and do enough
to be current, you really can have that dream of being the one to do your
own first flight if you want to.
You just have to put the time in beforehand.
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight Report |
There is one issue that has not been mentioned, but should be understood in all
of this. The fact of having flown another RV-10'that same morning or having had
transition training, etc is all fine IFF everything goes well with the flight.
The issue that comes into play is who is in charge, and what does the low-time
pilot do IF something goes wrong or doesn't fly the way it should. That is
when I want someone very comfortable in that model of plane, and preferably
relatively high-time, and possibly has time in several or more different planes
of the same model in control. This is the main reason that I do first flights
alone or I don't do them at all. I have flown at least 20+ different RV-10's,
and have almost 900 hours in them. I know how they feel and the different ranges
of "normal". If something doesn't feel right, I would like to think I can
tell when something doesn't feel right and maybe even tell what doesn't feel
right. This is something that a low-time pilot, and one with just transition training
will likely not be able to do. There are likely others who are MUCH more
qualified to do first flights than I am, but that is where the extra pilot
matrix comes to play for after the first flight.
Btw, before I will climb in any plane for a first flight, I go through all of the
critical items first, even if it takes a day or two, to make sure that I am
willing to put my life in it.
In a way, it's like riveting. Those of us who have built these planes can hear
when a river sets correctly. We can hear and feel in the rivet gun when the shop
head is correct. If you ask someone who is new to it, they will say (I have
done this lately) that they can't hear or feel any difference.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 16, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Dan Masys wrote:
>
>
> Agree with Tim and Jesse on the seating and preference for doing first
> flights for others' RV aircraft alone; have done three of these recently and
> it much reduces the cognitive load on the test pilot to do it alone.
>
> For helping other pilots who are 'in the zone' to do their own first flight
> there is a nice middle ground, and that is to put them in the left seat of
> your own RV-10 (with you along in right seat) just before they loose the
> surly bonds in their own bird. I did this for Brian Sutherland on the
> morning of his first flight in his RV-10, going exactly the same route
> orbiting the pattern that he intended to do, and having him do both the
> takeoff and the landing as well as the cruise component. Even though my
> avionics were a different brand than his, it helped with muscle memory and
> eye-hand coordination to go fly a flight-proven RV-10 just before strapping
> on his own for the first time.
>
> Safe travels,
> -Dan Masys
> RV-10 N104LD 830 hrs
> RV-12 N122LD 280 hrs
>
> --------------
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: First Flight Report
> From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
>
>
> I have to say that I think that the additional pilot program is kind of a
> mixed bag too. There are to many factors to make a blanket statement as to
> if I agree with everything, or not, or if I find it useful, and I actually
> appreciate Jesse's position that he does the first flights alone. I'll give
> you an example.
>
> Pilot Builder has 125 hours, with almost nothing in RV-10's other than some
> quick transition training, and many of the hours are not recent, as airplane
> building took all the available time and money.
>
> Other dude pilot, me, has over 1100 hours in RV10's.
>
> With this in mind, who do you stick in the left seat, and who's going to be
> the one at the controls?
>
> From my perspective, I'd be happy to do a first flight FOR someone, but I'm
> not all that interested in being subjected to the risk of being WITH
> someone, if I'm not the one at the controls. Certainly, if something does
> go wrong, a person would claim that they'd want the most experience, and
> most current person at the controls, but in actual application, this isn't
> necessarily what happens. What actually happens is that the guy with much
> less experience wants to fly it, because he built it. Now, I do have great
> respect for this, and I personally could not do it any other way. But I do
> think that from a risk/safety perspective this isn't the best situation.
> If I'm along in the plane, I want to be seated in the seat that I am most
> comfortable to have the proper reactions and natural feel in, and I want to
> be 100% responsible for the safety of the flight and getting the plane back
> on the ground regardless of emergency situation. So while I am willing to
> do a first flight, or even do a first flight with someone, I'm not willing
> to just be a ride-along for a first flight unless the other person is
> similar current and skilled...and honestly, if they were, they wouldn't be
> asking me along in the
> first place. And as far as having someone ride along
> with you, I can tell you first hand that the most dangerous times I've had
> probably, from an attention standpoint, are when you put two pilot friends
> together in a cockpit. It's fine if you can strictly follow solid CRM, but
> any extra chatter or communication just decreases safety.
>
> So I think that the additional pilot program can actually promote safety,
> but it may even do the opposite if not used properly, and builders need to
> understand what they are asking for when they ask someone to go along as an
> additional pilot.
> Purely from the standpoint of the builder, sure, he may indeed be safer
> having the highly qualified additional pilot with them, if they follow good
> CRM, even with him at the controls. But, that isn't necessarily the safest
> situation for that flight.
>
> I'll have a first flight coming up again sometime in the next year, and I
> would be the only one in the plane for that one, with or without the
> program. I'd strongly encourage transition training for all people, and my
> personal opinion is, if you get adequate transition training, and do enough
> to be current, you really can have that dream of being the one to do your
> own first flight if you want to.
> You just have to put the time in beforehand.
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cheapest insurance policy yet --SkySmith |
| From: | "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com> |
I'm with nation air in a rv6, anyone care to share an example rv10 rate with nation
air?
--------
Dave Ford
RV6 for sale
RV10 building
Cadillac, MI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448020#448020
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cheapest insurance policy yet --SkySmith |
The rates won't vary much between brokers. An RV-10 with about $190-200k hull and
a low time pilot should run about $2,500. Same with high time pilot about $1,600-1,800
these days. Price will obviously vary with hull coverage.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 16, 2015, at 5:18 PM, rvdave wrote:
>
>
> I'm with nation air in a rv6, anyone care to share an example rv10 rate with
nation air?
>
> --------
> Dave Ford
> RV6 for sale
> RV10 building
> Cadillac, MI
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448020#448020
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cheapest insurance policy yet --SkySmith |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
As Jesse says, NationAir is a broker. They represent you, and give you advice.
This past July NationAir recommended I go with USAIG.
Total premium $1630, similar coverage to first post except hull value $145K.
I'm commercial, IFR, CFII but also nearly 67 (no one will say it, but I think there
is an age bias above some secret number). 2500 hrTT, 200 hr in -10. No past
claims.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448023#448023
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cheapest insurance policy yet --SkySmith |
My current Nation Air policy issued May 1st is $1496 with $150K hull.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rvdave
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 6:18 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Cheapest insurance policy yet --SkySmith
I'm with nation air in a rv6, anyone care to share an example rv10 rate with
nation air?
--------
Dave Ford
RV6 for sale
RV10 building
Cadillac, MI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448020#448020
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Copperstate RV10 Nest 2015 |
| From: | "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com> |
Yes, lunch noonish Saturday the 24th. Should have the nest set up by mid afternoon
on Thursday.
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Flew May 10 2014
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448047#448047
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Copperstate RV10 Nest 2015 |
| From: | "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com> |
I deeply apologize, but planets got out of alignment and I am forced to make the
agonizing decision to scrub bringing the land based RV and hosting of the nest
and lunch. I have always enjoyed the experience and support but it just isn't
coming together this year.
I hope to fly over in the rv10 and hang out at least part of the time.
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Flew May 10 2014
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448085#448085
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | "Berck E. Nash" <flyboy(at)gmail.com> |
Infuriating.
"Van's recklessly sells its aircraft kits to ordinary consumers by
ensuring them that even though those consumers are deemed the 'builder'
of the aircraft, they do not need any experience or special knowledge to
safely assemble the aircraft, but can safely assemble the aircraft by
following Van's detailed assembly plans and utilizing Van's support,"
the suit states."
Vans recklessly sells its kits to inept pilots incapable of performing
the most basic task required of a pilot: fly the airplane. Worse, the
lawyers of the families of said inept pilots would like to ruin it for
the rest of us. I'd like to hope Van's fights, but I'm sure they cave
with a settlement large enough to encourage the sharks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
All the defense attorney needs is a copy of AC 43-13 to blow that
lawsuit to shreds.
It's a PITA for Vans but that's the way the world is today.
Anybody can sue anybody if they have the money ..... or the smell of it.
Linn
On 10/19/2015 11:15 PM, David Saylor wrote:
> This tragic accident was avoidable by following standard practices.
>
> Hopefully it's heard by an aviation judge, who would see all kinds of
> flaws with the "arguments" the suit presents.
>
> --Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
I believe it was standard RTV. If I remember right, it
was used on the threads of NTP fittings?
Either way, you don't want RTV used on ANY fuel fittings.
Or in the fuel tanks.
Tim
On 10/20/2015 10:20 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
> Does anybody know what sealant he used?
>
> Shannom
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com> |
.and no teflon tape!
grumpy
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 10:51 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>
> I believe it was standard RTV. If I remember right, it
> was used on the threads of NTP fittings?
> Either way, you don't want RTV used on ANY fuel fittings.
> Or in the fuel tanks.
> Tim
>
> On 10/20/2015 10:20 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
>> Does anybody know what sealant he used?
>>
>> Shannom
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Ron Walker <n520tx(at)gmail.com> |
Attached the NTSB report images. Pictures worth thousands of words.
On 10/20/2015 10:51 AM, John Trollinger wrote:
> RTV I believe..
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Shannon Hicks > wrote:
>
> Does anybody know what sealant he used?
>
> Shannom
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
Plumbing lines not in accordance with plans for my RV10 nor RV8.
Where=99s the return line?
Where would he get the idea that RTV is ok to use on fuel lines?
That=99s what flared AN fittings are for.only thing that
should ever be used on the threads is fuel lube.
What a shame.
grumpy
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Ron Walker wrote:
>
> Attached the NTSB report images. Pictures worth thousands of words.
>
> On 10/20/2015 10:51 AM, John Trollinger wrote:
>> RTV I believe..
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Shannon Hicks > > wrote:
>>
>> Does anybody know what sealant he used?
>>
>> Shannom
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
While I find the whole lawsuit, from the TONE of the lawsuit,
to the fact that it even exists, completely offensive, there
are a couple points that I find probably more offensive than
most. I am offended that they think "ordinary" people
cannot build their own plane. As far as I'm concerned, it is
"ordinary" people who design space ships, airliners, nuclear
submarines, and everything else in the world. We're ALL
ordinary people. We just work with things we're passionate
about. And what of the actual RULE of the FAA law that permits
us to build our plane...for RECREATION and EDUCATION. That
states right there that we do it to LEARN. Which IMPLIES
that we DO NOT KNOW already. So no, we don't have to be
aeronautical engineers, we are ordinary people, who may or
may not know, but we are to LEARN. He may have been a nice
guy, but clearly, he did not learn a couple of important
things...but it is nobody but his own fault. And, assuming
his panel had the standard passenger warning placard, it
was posted there for view by anyone that rode along, along
with the big "experimental" placards that are to be made
obvious. So anyone climbing in the plane is already on thin
ice for a lawsuit just by entering the doors.
But the other thing I find offensive is when a family, or
spouse, or anyone, after the fact, decides to start a
lawsuit against a kit company, or really in most cases, ANY
of these aviation businesses, after someone dies. Even
though companies do occasionally make mistakes, they need to
remember that we as aviators did this due to a passion,
a drive, and a love for aviation. For them to then start
a lawsuit that will only serve to RESTRICT our abilities to
use that passion, drive, and love for the hobby, that is
MOST CERTAINLY NOT what the pilot would have wanted.
In fact, I'd have to dig for it now, but I believe I have it
stated in my written and notarized will, that if I die in
my homebuilt airplane, I specifically DO NOT WANT my family
or anyone else to sue anyone over the crash, because my love
of aviation prevents me from wanting to inflict any
harm on the industry.
Now, if a company has known flaws, and then covers them up,
I'd change positions. Think VW with their coverup of the
emissions....if they have a problem and try to hide it,
I'd maybe think "go for the juggular". Companies need to
act with ethics. But clearly in this lawsuit, that is not
the issue. There was no ethical issue, no cover-up. Van's
didn't knowingly do anything wrong, and even wasn't negligent
in doing anything. They just produce parts, and there are
countless resources that people can additionally use to get
more information....he apparently didn't care enough to
read ANY documentation on fuel systems and RTV. His fault,
not theirs.
Now, one additional thing. We all know the 51% rule, right?
And everyone understands that it is 51% of the tasks that
are ON THE TASK list, right? So it's not really 51% of
the building...you don't have to count engine building, paint,
avionics wiring, and many many things. Why is this? Because
there are tasks that are just complex enough that they
expect a lot of builders will farm them out. This means that
they ASSUME that many builders who may feel up to the task
of building an airplane, may not feel up to the task to do
every last thing on their own. This again, implies that we
are not SUPPOSED to be experts. We are amateurs. Our
official designation is more like "Experimental Amateur Built"
for a reason....it clearly describes us.
And nowhere have I seen Van's promote that anyone can build
an airplane with solely the plans and Van's technical support.
I'd say that not only does Van's but everyone else, from the
FAA to the EAA, encourage the builder to dive in and get
lots of extra support.
Oh, and for the record...maybe I'll get lucky and the lawyers
will read this sentence...
Page 37-3 in the plans states:
"When installing fluid fittings with pipe threads do not use
Teflon tape. Use instead fuel lube or equivalent pipe thread
sealing paste."
I'd agree with the comment that we need tort reform. We need a
lot of things, and much of it needs to change in D.C.
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com> |
Well stated, Tim!
Maybe somebody can give a copy of this to the pilots daughter-in-law.
grumpy
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>
> While I find the whole lawsuit, from the TONE of the lawsuit,
> to the fact that it even exists, completely offensive, there
> are a couple points that I find probably more offensive than
> most. I am offended that they think "ordinary" people
> cannot build their own plane. As far as I'm concerned, it is
> "ordinary" people who design space ships, airliners, nuclear
> submarines, and everything else in the world. We're ALL
> ordinary people. We just work with things we're passionate
> about. And what of the actual RULE of the FAA law that permits
> us to build our plane...for RECREATION and EDUCATION. That
> states right there that we do it to LEARN. Which IMPLIES
> that we DO NOT KNOW already. So no, we don't have to be
> aeronautical engineers, we are ordinary people, who may or
> may not know, but we are to LEARN. He may have been a nice
> guy, but clearly, he did not learn a couple of important
> things...but it is nobody but his own fault. And, assuming
> his panel had the standard passenger warning placard, it
> was posted there for view by anyone that rode along, along
> with the big "experimental" placards that are to be made
> obvious. So anyone climbing in the plane is already on thin
> ice for a lawsuit just by entering the doors.
>
> But the other thing I find offensive is when a family, or
> spouse, or anyone, after the fact, decides to start a
> lawsuit against a kit company, or really in most cases, ANY
> of these aviation businesses, after someone dies. Even
> though companies do occasionally make mistakes, they need to
> remember that we as aviators did this due to a passion,
> a drive, and a love for aviation. For them to then start
> a lawsuit that will only serve to RESTRICT our abilities to
> use that passion, drive, and love for the hobby, that is
> MOST CERTAINLY NOT what the pilot would have wanted.
> In fact, I'd have to dig for it now, but I believe I have it
> stated in my written and notarized will, that if I die in
> my homebuilt airplane, I specifically DO NOT WANT my family
> or anyone else to sue anyone over the crash, because my love
> of aviation prevents me from wanting to inflict any
> harm on the industry.
>
> Now, if a company has known flaws, and then covers them up,
> I'd change positions. Think VW with their coverup of the
> emissions....if they have a problem and try to hide it,
> I'd maybe think "go for the juggular". Companies need to
> act with ethics. But clearly in this lawsuit, that is not
> the issue. There was no ethical issue, no cover-up. Van's
> didn't knowingly do anything wrong, and even wasn't negligent
> in doing anything. They just produce parts, and there are
> countless resources that people can additionally use to get
> more information....he apparently didn't care enough to
> read ANY documentation on fuel systems and RTV. His fault,
> not theirs.
>
> Now, one additional thing. We all know the 51% rule, right?
> And everyone understands that it is 51% of the tasks that
> are ON THE TASK list, right? So it's not really 51% of
> the building...you don't have to count engine building, paint,
> avionics wiring, and many many things. Why is this? Because
> there are tasks that are just complex enough that they
> expect a lot of builders will farm them out. This means that
> they ASSUME that many builders who may feel up to the task
> of building an airplane, may not feel up to the task to do
> every last thing on their own. This again, implies that we
> are not SUPPOSED to be experts. We are amateurs. Our
> official designation is more like "Experimental Amateur Built"
> for a reason....it clearly describes us.
>
> And nowhere have I seen Van's promote that anyone can build
> an airplane with solely the plans and Van's technical support.
> I'd say that not only does Van's but everyone else, from the
> FAA to the EAA, encourage the builder to dive in and get
> lots of extra support.
>
> Oh, and for the record...maybe I'll get lucky and the lawyers
> will read this sentence...
>
> Page 37-3 in the plans states:
>
> "When installing fluid fittings with pipe threads do not use
> Teflon tape. Use instead fuel lube or equivalent pipe thread
> sealing paste."
>
> I'd agree with the comment that we need tort reform. We need a
> lot of things, and much of it needs to change in D.C.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net> |
Right on spot! I hope too that the lawyers on both sides read this.
We won't get tort reform until everyone, and I mean everyone, shouts
from the roof tops that we need it. We can most certainly not count on
the flawmakers at any level of government to see what is really needed.
They only pass laws that will get them votes from the uninformed.
I would surely love to have a $175,000 a year, plus benefits, part time job.
Lyle
On 10/20/2015 12:22 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> While I find the whole lawsuit, from the TONE of the lawsuit,
> to the fact that it even exists, completely offensive, there
> are a couple points that I find probably more offensive than
> most. I am offended that they think "ordinary" people
> cannot build their own plane. As far as I'm concerned, it is
> "ordinary" people who design space ships, airliners, nuclear
> submarines, and everything else in the world. We're ALL
> ordinary people. We just work with things we're passionate
> about. And what of the actual RULE of the FAA law that permits
> us to build our plane...for RECREATION and EDUCATION. That
> states right there that we do it to LEARN. Which IMPLIES
> that we DO NOT KNOW already. So no, we don't have to be
> aeronautical engineers, we are ordinary people, who may or
> may not know, but we are to LEARN. He may have been a nice
> guy, but clearly, he did not learn a couple of important
> things...but it is nobody but his own fault. And, assuming
> his panel had the standard passenger warning placard, it
> was posted there for view by anyone that rode along, along
> with the big "experimental" placards that are to be made
> obvious. So anyone climbing in the plane is already on thin
> ice for a lawsuit just by entering the doors.
>
> But the other thing I find offensive is when a family, or
> spouse, or anyone, after the fact, decides to start a
> lawsuit against a kit company, or really in most cases, ANY
> of these aviation businesses, after someone dies. Even
> though companies do occasionally make mistakes, they need to
> remember that we as aviators did this due to a passion,
> a drive, and a love for aviation. For them to then start
> a lawsuit that will only serve to RESTRICT our abilities to
> use that passion, drive, and love for the hobby, that is
> MOST CERTAINLY NOT what the pilot would have wanted.
> In fact, I'd have to dig for it now, but I believe I have it
> stated in my written and notarized will, that if I die in
> my homebuilt airplane, I specifically DO NOT WANT my family
> or anyone else to sue anyone over the crash, because my love
> of aviation prevents me from wanting to inflict any
> harm on the industry.
>
> Now, if a company has known flaws, and then covers them up,
> I'd change positions. Think VW with their coverup of the
> emissions....if they have a problem and try to hide it,
> I'd maybe think "go for the juggular". Companies need to
> act with ethics. But clearly in this lawsuit, that is not
> the issue. There was no ethical issue, no cover-up. Van's
> didn't knowingly do anything wrong, and even wasn't negligent
> in doing anything. They just produce parts, and there are
> countless resources that people can additionally use to get
> more information....he apparently didn't care enough to
> read ANY documentation on fuel systems and RTV. His fault,
> not theirs.
>
> Now, one additional thing. We all know the 51% rule, right?
> And everyone understands that it is 51% of the tasks that
> are ON THE TASK list, right? So it's not really 51% of
> the building...you don't have to count engine building, paint,
> avionics wiring, and many many things. Why is this? Because
> there are tasks that are just complex enough that they
> expect a lot of builders will farm them out. This means that
> they ASSUME that many builders who may feel up to the task
> of building an airplane, may not feel up to the task to do
> every last thing on their own. This again, implies that we
> are not SUPPOSED to be experts. We are amateurs. Our
> official designation is more like "Experimental Amateur Built"
> for a reason....it clearly describes us.
>
> And nowhere have I seen Van's promote that anyone can build
> an airplane with solely the plans and Van's technical support.
> I'd say that not only does Van's but everyone else, from the
> FAA to the EAA, encourage the builder to dive in and get
> lots of extra support.
>
> Oh, and for the record...maybe I'll get lucky and the lawyers
> will read this sentence...
>
> Page 37-3 in the plans states:
>
> "When installing fluid fittings with pipe threads do not use
> Teflon tape. Use instead fuel lube or equivalent pipe thread
> sealing paste."
>
> I'd agree with the comment that we need tort reform. We need a
> lot of things, and much of it needs to change in D.C.
>
> Tim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | "bruceflys" <bruceflys(at)comcast.net> |
NTSB reports are not admissible in court. The plaintiff will pay "expert witnesses"
to support her case while the defendants will hire other experts to refute
them.
But beyond the possible builder error cause of the accident, the case could turn
on the defendants "failure to warn" a novice builder not to use RTV as a fuel
line sealant. Section 5 of the manual only forbids fuel lube and Teflon tape.
Yes we have all seen the superfluous warnings on products that seem so obvious,
but they are a defense against these kinds of claims
Preparation and a full trial could cost each side up to $100,000. Rather than
spend those sums, and risk a lay jury's verdict, the defendants' insurance companies
often settle for a few hundred thousand dollars. That could be the strategy
here.
n520tx(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Attached the NTSB report images. Pictures worth thousands of words.
>
> On 10/20/2015 10:51 AM, John Trollinger wrote:
>
> > RTV I believe..
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
> >
> > Does anybody know what sealant he used?
> >
> > Shannom
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
RV-10 UC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448136#448136
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Does Vans even carry insurance? Many small companies like this don't bother. Instead,
they pay out most of the profits (dividends, salaries, etc) so the company
itself is not worth anything like $30 million. Van may decide that he's had
enough, hand them the keys to the building and walk away. Truely a sad state
of affairs.
I'm pretty sure that I'm required to inform all passengers of the experimental
nature of the airplane. I guess that's for those who cannot read. What's next?
Reading the definition of 'experimental' from a dictionary?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448137#448137
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
On 10/20/2015 2:33 PM, bruceflys wrote:
>
> NTSB reports are not admissible in court.
I did not know that.
Can you direct me to where you found that???
Linn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
There is no return line for any RV built to plans, because all Lycoming
engines that Vans sells have RSA injection which uses NO return line,
never has. Only Continental fuel injection uses a true return line.
Airflow Performance uses a purge line.
On 10/20/2015 9:48 AM, Miller John wrote:
> Plumbing lines not in accordance with plans for my RV10 nor RV8. Wheres the
return line?
>
> Where would he get the idea that RTV is ok to use on fuel lines? Thats what
flared AN fittings are for.only thing that should ever be used on the threads
is fuel lube.
>
> What a shame.
>
> grumpy
>
>> On Oct 20, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Ron Walker wrote:
>>
>> Attached the NTSB report images. Pictures worth thousands of words.
>>
>> On 10/20/2015 10:51 AM, John Trollinger wrote:
>>> RTV I believe..
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Shannon Hicks >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anybody know what sealant he used?
>>>
>>> Shannom
>>>
>>>
>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
John did probably talk about the bypass line for the fuel filter?
This was a RV-10 with an carburetor not injection.
Werner
On 20.10.2015 22:13, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> There is no return line for any RV built to plans, ........
>
> On 10/20/2015 9:48 AM, Miller John wrote:
>> Plumbing lines not in accordance with plans for my RV10 nor RV8. Wheres the
return line?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com wrote:
> On 10/20/2015 2:33 PM, bruceflys wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > NTSB reports are not admissible in court.
> > I did not know that.
> >
>
> Can you direct me to where you found that???
> Linn
I do not have a reference but I'm pretty sure this is correct. NTSB didn't want
the cost of getting involved, so Congress specifically exempted their findings
from being used in civil lawsuits. The lawyers have to duplicate the findings
at their own expense (that is, the clients' expense).
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448141#448141
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David" <dlm34077(at)cox.net> |
Some may not be aware:
Some states have laws on the books as an attorney and doctor preservation
societies; they are called family limited partnership laws. Since laws can
not be written to exclude the rest of us, you might examine whether your
state has family limited partnership laws which you can use.
Partnership can be setup with unique tax ID; the basic provisions are that
the partnership is established for 98 years. The partnership can be sued and
judgments can occur; however the judgment is in the form of a charging order
at a monthly rate which has two important provisions. Judgment is not due
until the partnership terminates and assets remain; meanwhile the IRS has
determined that the accrued charging order is taxable income in the year
accrued. Hence the plaintiff and lawyer may receive compensation up to 98
years in the future (if the heirs have not spent it all) and they have
enjoyed paying current year taxes on all accrued income. Note IRAs etc. are
not subject to judgment anyway. Bank accounts must be established for the
tax ID and other assets (i.e. real estate etc) must be titled to the
partnership. Assets which are titled to a trust or individual name must
documented lien to the partnership. The general partners have full authority
to use partnership assets as required.
I am not an attorney so I do not know whether these laws can protect RV10
owner's assets in other states.
General Partner,
Trustee,
And individual
"know when to sign which title"
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com> |
"Section 5 of the manual only forbids fuel lube and Teflon tape." Did I
miss something? I just reread section 5 and did not see the prohibition of
fuel lube. Page 37-3 of the plans states "...do not use Teflon tape. Use
instead, fuel lube or equivalent pipe thread sealing paste."
Shannon
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:33 PM, bruceflys wrote:
>
> NTSB reports are not admissible in court. The plaintiff will pay "expert
> witnesses" to support her case while the defendants will hire other experts
> to refute them.
>
> But beyond the possible builder error cause of the accident, the case
> could turn on the defendants "failure to warn" a novice builder not to use
> RTV as a fuel line sealant. Section 5 of the manual only forbids fuel lube
> and Teflon tape. Yes we have all seen the superfluous warnings on products
> that seem so obvious, but they are a defense against these kinds of claims
>
> Preparation and a full trial could cost each side up to $100,000. Rather
> than spend those sums, and risk a lay jury's verdict, the defendants'
> insurance companies often settle for a few hundred thousand dollars. That
> could be the strategy here.
>
>
> n520tx(at)gmail.com wrote:
> > Attached the NTSB report images. Pictures worth thousands of words.
> >
> > On 10/20/2015 10:51 AM, John Trollinger wrote:
> >
> > > RTV I believe..
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
> > >
> > > Does anybody know what sealant he used?
> > >
> > > Shannom
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --------
> RV-10 UC
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448136#448136
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com> |
Werner is correct, I was mistaken.
After looking at the plans again, there is a single drawing that depicts the setup
shown in the NTSB report.
I should have reviewed the plans before commenting, not realizing that there was
another pump and transducer setup that could be used.
My RV8 setup is the same as in my RV10, so I was only thinking of that installation.
And in looking at the NTSB pictures a bit closer, on those fittings with no flare
to make the seal, use of fuel lube would have been the correct choice.
If you look closely at the RTV shown in the NTSB pictures, it appears that there
was a glob that was the culpirt to block fuel from going through the Flow-Scan
to the engine.
Replacing the Flow-Scan in the tunnel with the plane all put together is, as we
all know, a very hard place to work in and could certainly lead to being a bit
sloppy with whatever he used for thread sealant.
grumpy
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 3:35 PM, Werner Schneider wrote:
>
>
> John did probably talk about the bypass line for the fuel filter?
>
> This was a RV-10 with an carburetor not injection.
>
> Werner
>
> On 20.10.2015 22:13, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>> There is no return line for any RV built to plans, ........
>>
>> On 10/20/2015 9:48 AM, Miller John wrote:
>>> Plumbing lines not in accordance with plans for my RV10 nor RV8. Wheres the
return line?
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | "bruceflys" <bruceflys(at)comcast.net> |
>From my manual's Section 5 dated 9/24/13:
Two sealants popular for use on aircraft are Tite-seal and Permatex #2. Teflon
based pipe dopes and sealants, and some of the anaerobic thread sealants are
also used by some builders with success. Do not use Fuel Lube. It is not a sealant.
It is meant for lubricating moving parts in fuel valves, etc. Teflon tape
is also not recommended. Small pieces of this tape may be cut by the threads,
become loose, and cause all kinds of problems in aircraft systems. Teflon tape
has even been the cause of engine stoppages.
That applies for lawsuits. I saw the contradiction you pointed out in Section 37
during my build. I have used fuel lube, now EZ Turn, on fuel line NPT fittings
for many years with good results. For high pressure lines, such as brakes,
a conventional sealant is a better choice.
[quote="civengpe"]"Section 5 of the manual only forbids fuel lube and Teflon tape."
Did I miss something? I just reread section 5 and did not see the prohibition
of fuel lube. Page 37-3 of the plans states "...do not use Teflon tape. Use
instead, fuel lube orequivalentpipe thread sealing paste."
Shannon
--------
RV-10 UC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448150#448150
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
I use Seal Lube. It works great.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 21, 2015, at 8:02 AM, bruceflys wrote:
>
>
>> From my manual's Section 5 dated 9/24/13:
>
> Two sealants popular for use on aircraft are Tite-seal and Permatex #2. Teflon
based pipe dopes and sealants, and some of the anaerobic thread sealants are
also used by some builders with success. Do not use Fuel Lube. It is not a sealant.
It is meant for lubricating moving parts in fuel valves, etc. Teflon tape
is also not recommended. Small pieces of this tape may be cut by the threads,
become loose, and cause all kinds of problems in aircraft systems. Teflon tape
has even been the cause of engine stoppages.
>
> That applies for lawsuits. I saw the contradiction you pointed out in Section
37 during my build. I have used fuel lube, now EZ Turn, on fuel line NPT fittings
for many years with good results. For high pressure lines, such as brakes,
a conventional sealant is a better choice.
>
>
>
> [quote="civengpe"]"Section 5 of the manual only forbids fuel lube and Teflon
tape." Did I miss something? I just reread section 5 and did not see the prohibition
of fuel lube. Page 37-3 of the plans states "...do not use Teflon tape.
Use instead, fuel lube or equivalent pipe thread sealing paste."
>
> Shannon
>
> --------
> RV-10 UC
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448150#448150
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com> |
There must have been some changes made to section 5 between my version
(2003) and this one. If someone has the most recent version in PDF I would
really like to get a copy.
Thanks,
Shannon
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015, bruceflys wrote:
> >
>
> >From my manual's Section 5 dated 9/24/13:
>
> Two sealants popular for use on aircraft are Tite-seal and Permatex #2.
> Teflon based pipe dopes and sealants, and some of the anaerobic thread
> sealants are also used by some builders with success. Do not use Fuel Lube.
> It is not a sealant. It is meant for lubricating moving parts in fuel
> valves, etc. Teflon tape is also not recommended. Small pieces of this tape
> may be cut by the threads, become loose, and cause all kinds of problems in
> aircraft systems. Teflon tape has even been the cause of engine stoppages.
>
> That applies for lawsuits. I saw the contradiction you pointed out in
> Section 37 during my build. I have used fuel lube, now EZ Turn, on fuel
> line NPT fittings for many years with good results. For high pressure
> lines, such as brakes, a conventional sealant is a better choice.
>
>
> [quote="civengpe"]"Section 5 of the manual only forbids fuel lube and
> Teflon tape." Did I miss something? I just reread section 5 and did not
> see the prohibition of fuel lube. Page 37-3 of the plans states "...do not
> use Teflon tape. Use instead, fuel lube or equivalent pipe thread sealing
> paste."
>
> Shannon
>
> --------
> RV-10 UC
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448150#448150
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
To get the most recent section 5, I'd suggest getting it from
Van's. They have it under revisions, and it was updated during
the RV-14 kit.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/service-rv14.htm
I still have my original copy from 2005 or earlier, but,
this one is much better, and was revised 6/12/15.
Tim
On 10/21/2015 8:46 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
> There must have been some changes made to section 5 between my version
> (2003) and this one. If someone has the most recent version in PDF I
> would really like to get a copy.
>
> Thanks,
> Shannon
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
New section 5 by itself is available at
http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/revisions/RV-ALL_Section-5.pdf
On 10/21/2015 7:10 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>
> To get the most recent section 5, I'd suggest getting it from
> Van's. They have it under revisions, and it was updated during
> the RV-14 kit.
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/service-rv14.htm
>
> I still have my original copy from 2005 or earlier, but,
> this one is much better, and was revised 6/12/15.
> Tim
>
>
> On 10/21/2015 8:46 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
>> There must have been some changes made to section 5 between my version
>> (2003) and this one. If someone has the most recent version in PDF I
>> would really like to get a copy.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shannon
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Tim.
On Oct 21, 2015 09:17, "Tim Olson" wrote:
>
>
> To get the most recent section 5, I'd suggest getting it from
> Van's. They have it under revisions, and it was updated during
> the RV-14 kit.
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/service-rv14.htm
>
> I still have my original copy from 2005 or earlier, but,
> this one is much better, and was revised 6/12/15.
> Tim
>
>
> On 10/21/2015 8:46 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
>
>> There must have been some changes made to section 5 between my version
>> (2003) and this one. If someone has the most recent version in PDF I
>> would really like to get a copy.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shannon
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
Thanks Kelly .... much improved over my section 5. Now all Vans has to
do is get people to read it!!!!
I've seen a lot of 'crap' on airplanes over the years, and I'm still
amazed at the 'Here's a better idea.' and 'If a little is good, more
must be better.' mentality. When I was a baby pilot building a BD-5 my
mentor gave me a dog-eared copy of AC 43-13 ..... and it's in much worse
shape now. That ought to be 'required reading' for any builder. It
sure would have saved many lives over the years.
Linn
On 10/21/2015 10:54 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> New section 5 by itself is available at
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/revisions/RV-ALL_Section-5.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com> |
I will gladly attend the trial and post developments. I am certain it will
not be an Oregon Aviation Judge as Justice Charles SAMS, former USAF Brig.
Gen has already passed away and all of my pilot attorney friends s are
either retired, practicing and not serving as judges. Negligence is the
issue. Who was negligent? This attorney Clarke has Certificated
production aircraft under part 23 confused with Experimental Build Kit
Aircraft built for the Education of the Walter Mitty builder. Must be on
Cessna/Piper & Cirrus Chinese payroll.
Builder error, Operator error.... Oh hell just throw the net wherever the
money is hiding. It sure isn't most RV-10 builders.
I believe Mike Van Hoomisen is Van's Aircraft attorney (also AOPA) and a
thoroughly good aviation attorney. He has helped several friends out of
spots who I have directed to him. However one settlement nearly shut down
Airflow Performance and a family business when it was economically
expedient for one defendant to pay up and close the litigation.
$35,000,000 is a large number. What is that Oregon bumper sticker "Keep
Portland Weird". Here we go again. It is just business as usual. And who
carefully supervised and consulted on the build? How would a bypass fuel
line help when it too flows the RTV sealant (that was used - incorrectly)
to its ultimate stop? Oh that's right "Just Build it" and of course VANS
must have directed the build and sold the RTV for that contributing fuel
line installation. Got Ya!
Tragic for all.
John Cox
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Linn Walters wrote:
>
> Thanks Kelly .... much improved over my section 5. Now all Vans has to do
> is get people to read it!!!!
> I've seen a lot of 'crap' on airplanes over the years, and I'm still
> amazed at the 'Here's a better idea.' and 'If a little is good, more must
> be better.' mentality. When I was a baby pilot building a BD-5 my mentor
> gave me a dog-eared copy of AC 43-13 ..... and it's in much worse shape
> now. That ought to be 'required reading' for any builder. It sure would
> have saved many lives over the years.
> Linn
>
> On 10/21/2015 10:54 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>>
>> New section 5 by itself is available at
>> http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/revisions/RV-ALL_Section-5.pdf
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Seat question |
I did one of the rail mods some time ago and it's worth it's weight in
gold now that I'm getting on to 5 years of flying and maintaining.
However, I still labored at the T-handle removal and re-installation. I
had read about how the stops could be modified for easy removal but I
forgot about that and instead returned to the idea of nut plates on the
T-handles.
However, I ended up doing something slightly different. I used nutserts
in the T-handle.
The only concern I observed after I did the first one is that nutsert
are not finished flush on the inserted face. It would work this way but
there would be a roughly 1/64" space between the T-handler and the seat
frame.
Turns out that if you install them 'backwards', they leave a flush fit
for the T-handle to mate with the seat frame. It also leaves a nicely
finished face on the outside edge... not that one ever really sees that
edge.
Now the T-handles can be removed and re-installed with a single powered
screwdriver using a single hand. That combined with the rail
modification (trim the plastic, not the aluminum) makes the whole
operation much easier than stock.
BTW, this was all done during the process of installing the PlaneAround
90degree retrofit door latch. Not only do I feel safer, but this
product fixed my entire door installation that includes the IFLYRV10
flush billet door handles and lock. There was excessive friction in the
setup and I never could completely latch the doors from the outside.
Now it all works!
Up to now, my RV10 passenger safety briefing consisted of "This is a
fantastic airplane, nothing to worry about but under no circumstances
are you to touch the doors - I open and close all doors at all times".
Now I can say, " remember this isn't car and it's not a car door so no
slamming, just pull it down and close the latch, Thank You"
Bill "Door Victory at Last - but I need to refinish the )(*&$#@$@#*^
things again" Watson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Seat question |
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
On 22.10.2015 03:50, Bill Watson wrote:
>
> I did one of the rail mods some time ago and it's worth it's weight in
> gold now that I'm getting on to 5 years of flying and maintaining.
> However, I still labored at the T-handle removal and re-installation. I
> had read about how the stops could be modified for easy removal but I
> forgot about that and instead returned to the idea of nut plates on the
> T-handles.
>
Bill,
do you have some pictures of that modification?
Thanks Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Seat question |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
On 10/21/2015 9:50 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>
> I did one of the rail mods some time ago and it's worth it's weight in
> gold now that I'm getting on to 5 years of flying and maintaining.
> However, I still labored at the T-handle removal and re-installation.
> I had read about how the stops could be modified for easy removal but
> I forgot about that and instead returned to the idea of nut plates on
> the T-handles.
>
> However, I ended up doing something slightly different. I used
> nutserts in the T-handle.
I drilled and tapped the T-handles.
Linn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | "AirMike" <Mikeabel(at)Pacbell.net> |
Remember what William Shakespeare said.
--------
See you OSH '15
Q/B - flying 6 yrs.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448180#448180
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Seat question |
| From: | Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au> |
Any pictures of your seat modifications please Bill?
Warm regards
Patrick
> On 22 Oct 2015, at 12:20, Bill Watson wrote:
>
>
> I did one of the rail mods some time ago and it's worth it's weight in gold now
that I'm getting on to 5 years of flying and maintaining. However, I still
labored at the T-handle removal and re-installation. I had read about how the
stops could be modified for easy removal but I forgot about that and instead
returned to the idea of nut plates on the T-handles.
>
> However, I ended up doing something slightly different. I used nutserts in the
T-handle.
>
> The only concern I observed after I did the first one is that nutsert are not
finished flush on the inserted face. It would work this way but there would
be a roughly 1/64" space between the T-handler and the seat frame.
>
> Turns out that if you install them 'backwards', they leave a flush fit for the
T-handle to mate with the seat frame. It also leaves a nicely finished face
on the outside edge... not that one ever really sees that edge.
>
> Now the T-handles can be removed and re-installed with a single powered screwdriver
using a single hand. That combined with the rail modification (trim the
plastic, not the aluminum) makes the whole operation much easier than stock.
>
> BTW, this was all done during the process of installing the PlaneAround 90degree
retrofit door latch. Not only do I feel safer, but this product fixed my
entire door installation that includes the IFLYRV10 flush billet door handles
and lock. There was excessive friction in the setup and I never could completely
latch the doors from the outside. Now it all works!
>
> Up to now, my RV10 passenger safety briefing consisted of "This is a fantastic
airplane, nothing to worry about but under no circumstances are you to touch
the doors - I open and close all doors at all times". Now I can say, " remember
this isn't car and it's not a car door so no slamming, just pull it down
and close the latch, Thank You"
>
> Bill "Door Victory at Last - but I need to refinish the )(*&$#@$@#*^ things again"
Watson
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Fwd: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit |
For the list, Scott has given me permission to forward his response to
my email to the entire list.
I suspect that Van would appreciate such additional support from the
rest of the RV10 owners.
You can send your comments to support(at)vansaircraft.com
. That=92s where I sent mine and Scott
is the one who answered.
grumpy
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: srisan(at)vansaircraft.com
> Subject: Re: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
> Date: October 21, 2015 at 9:30:18 AM CDT
> To: Miller John
>
> John, We very much appreciate your support. Suits like these can
really take the wind out of
> your sales. It's bad for us, it's bad for the industry and it's bad
for our economy and society.
> As you said, the NTSB 'probable cause' is very likely spot on for this
accident. It's sad that
> the loss of life and injuries could have been avoided so easily.
>
> Again, thanks for the support. I'll pass your email on to Van.
>
> Best,
> Scott Risan
> Van's Aircraft
>
>> Dear Dick and all of your employees,
>>
>> I read with dismay the lawsuit that was filed against your company
and FlowScan over the fatal RV10 crash in Oregon last year.
>>
>> After reading the actual court filed papers, it is obvious that these
lawyers are nothing but ambulance chasing crooks and are out to get a
big settlement from your insurance company.
>>
>> What a bunch of hogwash in their allegations. And to think it was
filed on behalf of the deceased pilot/builder=B4s daughter-in-law makes
it both sad and unbelievable. The NTSB pictures of the installation
tell the story loud and clear that he neither followed the plans for
installation of the fuel system nor understood how to put fuel lines
together.
>>
>> I am one of your early RV10 builders, and am now building an RV8.
Your kits, and the engineering work behind them, are absolutely the best
as is your customer service and tech support.
>>
>> I hope that you can withstand this frivolous lawsuit without too much
pain.
>>
>> There are thousands of happy RV builders world-wide who support you
100%!
>>
>> If you need support from an "amateur" builder, please call on me!
>>
>> John Miller
>> Tullahoma, TN
>>
>> RV10 40404
>> RV8 83329
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Seat question |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Here is a photo and description of the T-handle mod My Kitlog - T-Handle
Seat Mod
<http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=mauledriver&project=224&category=7984&log=216267&row=1>
I don't have any photos of the rail mod which I did a few years ago per
postings here or on Vans Airforce. Some have ground away part of the
aluminum rail. The alternative I took was to cut out part of the front
of the plastic runners. A little bit of aluminum may have to be removed
as well but I don't think so. Sorry I don't exactly recall. In either
case, it allow the seat to slide out without have to touch the flap
actuation cover... or the carpet that it may be covered with
It's all back together now but if I can take a meaningful pic, I will.
Bill "Finally happy with seat removal and installation but it's still a
back breaker" Watson
On 10/22/2015 8:25 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote:
>
> Any pictures of your seat modifications please Bill?
>
> Warm regards
>
> Patrick
>
>> On 22 Oct 2015, at 12:20, Bill Watson wrote:
>>
>>
>> I did one of the rail mods some time ago and it's worth it's weight in gold
now that I'm getting on to 5 years of flying and maintaining. However, I still
labored at the T-handle removal and re-installation. I had read about how the
stops could be modified for easy removal but I forgot about that and instead
returned to the idea of nut plates on the T-handles.
>>
>> However, I ended up doing something slightly different. I used nutserts in
the T-handle.
>>
>> The only concern I observed after I did the first one is that nutsert are not
finished flush on the inserted face. It would work this way but there would
be a roughly 1/64" space between the T-handler and the seat frame.
>>
>> Turns out that if you install them 'backwards', they leave a flush fit for
the T-handle to mate with the seat frame. It also leaves a nicely finished face
on the outside edge... not that one ever really sees that edge.
>>
>> Now the T-handles can be removed and re-installed with a single powered screwdriver
using a single hand. That combined with the rail modification (trim the
plastic, not the aluminum) makes the whole operation much easier than stock.
>>
>> BTW, this was all done during the process of installing the PlaneAround 90degree
retrofit door latch. Not only do I feel safer, but this product fixed my
entire door installation that includes the IFLYRV10 flush billet door handles
and lock. There was excessive friction in the setup and I never could completely
latch the doors from the outside. Now it all works!
>>
>> Up to now, my RV10 passenger safety briefing consisted of "This is a fantastic
airplane, nothing to worry about but under no circumstances are you to touch
the doors - I open and close all doors at all times". Now I can say, " remember
this isn't car and it's not a car door so no slamming, just pull it down
and close the latch, Thank You"
>>
>> Bill "Door Victory at Last - but I need to refinish the )(*&$#@$@#*^ things
again" Watson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com> |
Saw this hat and couldn't resist buying it. I was sitting in Bubba's on Kaua
i reading about the lawsuit when I saw this hat.
Sent from my iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Seat question |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Hey Bill,
Regarding the Nutserts, is there any worry about the nutserts
pulling through the hole? It seems to me that if they slid
out, the whole thing falls apart, and they wouldn't be as strong
as having something on the outer face to hold that bolt that
can't pull through. But I haven't installed any in years.
The ones I did were aluminum and didn't seem ultra strong.
Also, if they are aluminum, then maybe just going up a size in
bolt would work, and drill and tap the holes in the T-Handle
bracket? A risky proposition for cost if it gets messed
up, is the bigger worry. Plus the threads would eventually
wear a lot after many removals. I think ideally, someone
would make a nutsert with integral external hex flange/locknut.
That would take care of all worries.
Tim
On 10/22/2015 12:29 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
> Here is a photo and description of the T-handle mod My Kitlog - T-Handle
> Seat Mod
> <http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=mauledriver&project=224&category=7984&log=216267&row=1>
>
> I don't have any photos of the rail mod which I did a few years ago per
> postings here or on Vans Airforce. Some have ground away part of the
> aluminum rail. The alternative I took was to cut out part of the front
> of the plastic runners. A little bit of aluminum may have to be removed
> as well but I don't think so. Sorry I don't exactly recall. In either
> case, it allow the seat to slide out without have to touch the flap
> actuation cover... or the carpet that it may be covered with
>
> It's all back together now but if I can take a meaningful pic, I will.
>
> Bill "Finally happy with seat removal and installation but it's still a
> back breaker" Watson
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | "Hugo" <Gommone7(at)bellsouth.net> |
For those nice persons in these (still ) beautiful country who trying to make the
Lawyers disappear ,please remember .
Millions years ago the life in this planet start as a Amoeba
Few thousands years ago they mutate and became lawyers in the Greek congress ,and
in the Roman Empire.(both not longer exist)
In modern times they dictate the laws,determine what progress can be done
Or make a nice company disappear
HOW WE THINKS WE CAN BE FREE OF THAT SPECIES of PARASITES
My two cents
--------
My wife it's always right
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448193#448193
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Seat question |
Note that if you do the mod to make the rear rail stop removable, i.e.
nutplates for it's attach bolts, then there's no reason to ever have to
remove the t-handles.
I did that mod plus the removal of the front portion of the of the
delrin (or whatever it is) under the slide. Seats come out in a couple
minutes.
-Sean #40303 (trying to figure out why XM weather quit receiving)
> Tim Olson
> October 22, 2015 at 1:55 PM
>
> Hey Bill,
> Regarding the Nutserts, is there any worry about the nutserts
> pulling through the hole? It seems to me that if they slid
> out, the whole thing falls apart, and they wouldn't be as strong
> as having something on the outer face to hold that bolt that
> can't pull through. But I haven't installed any in years.
> The ones I did were aluminum and didn't seem ultra strong.
> Also, if they are aluminum, then maybe just going up a size in
> bolt would work, and drill and tap the holes in the T-Handle
> bracket? A risky proposition for cost if it gets messed
> up, is the bigger worry. Plus the threads would eventually
> wear a lot after many removals. I think ideally, someone
> would make a nutsert with integral external hex flange/locknut.
> That would take care of all worries.
> Tim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Seat question |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Since the load is nearly all shear, I would think this is okay if you only torque
the bolts to the lower, shear load spec; this is unlikely to pull the insert
thru. But if it does happen, eventually the bolt threads will bottom out and
the bolt will have no pre-load. I note that you have to go to a shorter length
bolt (or washers under the bolt head) so that the threaded area now carries
part of the shear load, instead of 100% on the shank as in the original design.
Again, not quite as strong as the original design. I think you should try to
get at least some of the shank into the hole in the latch piece. In a typical
crash (moving forward) the seat belt will carry the imposed loads, so the latch
is really not that important. Unless you spin around 180 degres and then suddenly
stop. I have no idea if even the original design can carry your weight
plus the seat times 10(?)(g).
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448198#448198
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Seat question |
| From: | Ed Kranz <ed.kranz(at)gmail.com> |
This is what I did. Seat out in about 2 minutes. Just need a socket on an
extension to get to the bolts between the sidewall and the seat. Works
great!
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Sean Stephens
wrote:
>
> Note that if you do the mod to make the rear rail stop removable, i.e.
> nutplates for it's attach bolts, then there's no reason to ever have to
> remove the t-handles.
>
> I did that mod plus the removal of the front portion of the of the delrin
> (or whatever it is) under the slide. Seats come out in a couple minutes.
>
> -Sean #40303 (trying to figure out why XM weather quit receiving)
>
>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Lawyer-bashing is easy, and kind of fun, but let's not forget that every crazy
award was handed out by 'a jury of our peers'.
As Pogo famously said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Returning sanity to the legal process is both simple and hard.
Simple: allow defendants the right to insist on a bench trial.
Hard: that would take a constitutional amendment.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448200#448200
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
I queried the AYA Safety Director .... knowledgeable in many aviation
matters and here's answer:
One comment was that NTSB accident investigation data is not admissible
in court. Is this true?
[Levy] Sort of. Factual information gathered by NTSB investigators is admissible.
Conclusions based on that information are not -- the jury draws its own conclusions.
Should be a slam-dunk with those pictures. But the lawyers still come out on top.
Linn
On 10/20/2015 4:39 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
>
> flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com wrote:
>> On 10/20/2015 2:33 PM, bruceflys wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> NTSB reports are not admissible in court.
>>> I did not know that.
>>>
>> Can you direct me to where you found that???
>> Linn
>
> I do not have a reference but I'm pretty sure this is correct. NTSB didn't want
the cost of getting involved, so Congress specifically exempted their findings
from being used in civil lawsuits. The lawyers have to duplicate the findings
at their own expense (that is, the clients' expense).
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448141#448141
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net> |
Admissibility of NTSB reports depends. Basically federal laws says,
"No." However the courts have determined that depending on the source
of the information, how it is delivered to the court and what part of
the report it is contained in the NTSB report may be admissible while
other parts would be considered hearsay.
More information and discussion can be found at:
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/masstorts/articles/summer2013-0813-crash-reports-what-will-jury-hear.html
and
http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/articles/ntsb/
I searched for "NTSB findings admissible in court"
There are many discussions and interesting cases. Many are in PDF form
and with all the click thru links attached and other nonsense the link
becomes unmanageable. The PDF file will download to your computer to be
viewed in Adobe Reader.
For those interested.
Lyle
On 10/22/2015 5:20 PM, Linn Walters wrote:
>
> I queried the AYA Safety Director .... knowledgeable in many aviation
> matters and here's answer:
>
> One comment was that NTSB accident investigation data is not admissible
> in court. Is this true?
>
> [Levy] Sort of. Factual information gathered by NTSB investigators is
> admissible. Conclusions based on that information are not -- the jury
> draws its own conclusions.
>
> Should be a slam-dunk with those pictures. But the lawyers still come
> out on top.
> Linn
>
>
> On 10/20/2015 4:39 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>>
>>
>> flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2015 2:33 PM, bruceflys wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> NTSB reports are not admissible in court.
>>>> I did not know that.
>>>>
>>> Can you direct me to where you found that???
>>> Linn
>>
>> I do not have a reference but I'm pretty sure this is correct. NTSB
>> didn't want the cost of getting involved, so Congress specifically
>> exempted their findings from being used in civil lawsuits. The
>> lawyers have to duplicate the findings at their own expense (that is,
>> the clients' expense).
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448141#448141
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Seat question |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
The load being in shear was my thinking. Given that, getting a flush
fit between the seat rail and T-pin, and being able to torque the bolts
to spec is the main (perhaps only) concern relative to an traumatic
event. This approach satisfies both needs.
The trick to getting the flush fit however is putting the Nutserts in
'backward' which allows a flush fit between the seat rail and T-pin
assembly. On one hand, the compressed Nutsert is now just pressed into
it's hole rather than have an expanded portion on the backside of a
thinner piece of material. On the other hand the lip of the Nutsert is
now resisting the pull of the bolt.
The solution involving nutplating the stop block seems ideal and it's
what I would have done in the initial build. It's taken me years to
tire of seat removal so slowly I've 1) trimmed the Delrin rail and 2)
finally Nutserted the bolts.
I thought about drilling out for tapping an AN4 bolt or something but
didn't get to the point of thinking that approach through. Doing what I
did is low risk - I can still put a long bolt, washer and nut on it if
I want (?!!), not.
I may have the threaded portion of the bolt going thru the joint but I
may be able to remedy that with the right length bolt and/or washers.
There's a nice gap between the joint face and where the threads start on
the Nutsert.
On 10/22/2015 5:15 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
> Since the load is nearly all shear, I would think this is okay if you only torque
the bolts to the lower, shear load spec; this is unlikely to pull the insert
thru. But if it does happen, eventually the bolt threads will bottom out and
the bolt will have no pre-load. I note that you have to go to a shorter length
bolt (or washers under the bolt head) so that the threaded area now carries
part of the shear load, instead of 100% on the shank as in the original design.
Again, not quite as strong as the original design. I think you should try
to get at least some of the shank into the hole in the latch piece. In a typical
crash (moving forward) the seat belt will carry the imposed loads, so the latch
is really not that important. Unless you spin around 180 degres and then
suddenly stop. I have no idea if even the original design can carry your weight
plus the seat times 10(?)(g).
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448198#448198
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Masys" <dmasys(at)u.washington.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
Would it be worth considering creation of an amicus brief co-signed by
hundreds of us RV-10 builder-pilots about the quality of the kit, and good
citizenship of the company?
What the lawyers say about Vans is nothing short of libel; someone should
institute a counter-suit against them for $35M for the reputation damage
they cause to the entire industry by such ill-considered assertions played
out in the media before the case is tried.
-Dan Masys
Not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I do recognize foul play
________________________________ Message 4
_____________________________________
From: Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Fwd: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
For the list, Scott has given me permission to forward his response to my
email to the entire list.
I suspect that Van would appreciate such additional support from the rest of
the RV10 owners.
You can send your comments to support(at)vansaircraft.com
. That=92s where I sent mine and Scott is
the one who answered.
grumpy
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: srisan(at)vansaircraft.com
> Subject: Re: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
> Date: October 21, 2015 at 9:30:18 AM CDT
> To: Miller John
>
> John, We very much appreciate your support. Suits like these can
really take the wind out of
> your sales. It's bad for us, it's bad for the industry and it's bad
for our economy and society.
> As you said, the NTSB 'probable cause' is very likely spot on for this
accident. It's sad that
> the loss of life and injuries could have been avoided so easily.
>
> Again, thanks for the support. I'll pass your email on to Van.
>
> Best,
> Scott Risan
> Van's Aircraft
>
>> Dear Dick and all of your employees,
>>
>> I read with dismay the lawsuit that was filed against your company
and FlowScan over the fatal RV10 crash in Oregon last year.
>>
>> After reading the actual court filed papers, it is obvious that these
lawyers are nothing but ambulance chasing crooks and are out to get a big
settlement from your insurance company.
>>
>> What a bunch of hogwash in their allegations. And to think it was
filed on behalf of the deceased pilot/builder=B4s daughter-in-law makes it
both sad and unbelievable. The NTSB pictures of the installation tell the
story loud and clear that he neither followed the plans for installation of
the fuel system nor understood how to put fuel lines together.
>>
>> I am one of your early RV10 builders, and am now building an RV8.
Your kits, and the engineering work behind them, are absolutely the best as
is your customer service and tech support.
>>
>> I hope that you can withstand this frivolous lawsuit without too much
pain.
>>
>> There are thousands of happy RV builders world-wide who support you
100%!
>>
>> If you need support from an "amateur" builder, please call on me!
>>
>> John Miller
>> Tullahoma, TN
>>
>> RV10 40404
>> RV8 83329
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
Hey, that's not a bad idea. If someone writes up a good statement I bet we can
get at least a few hundred RV10 builders and probably a few thousand RV builders.
Tim
> On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Dan Masys wrote:
>
>
> Would it be worth considering creation of an amicus brief co-signed by
> hundreds of us RV-10 builder-pilots about the quality of the kit, and good
> citizenship of the company?
>
> What the lawyers say about Vans is nothing short of libel; someone should
> institute a counter-suit against them for $35M for the reputation damage
> they cause to the entire industry by such ill-considered assertions played
> out in the media before the case is tried.
>
> -Dan Masys
> Not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I do recognize foul play
>
> ________________________________ Message 4
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
> Subject: RV10-List: Fwd: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
>
> For the list, Scott has given me permission to forward his response to my
> email to the entire list.
>
> I suspect that Van would appreciate such additional support from the rest of
> the RV10 owners.
>
> You can send your comments to support(at)vansaircraft.com
> . That=92s where I sent mine and Scott is
> the one who answered.
>
> grumpy
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: srisan(at)vansaircraft.com
>> Subject: Re: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
>> Date: October 21, 2015 at 9:30:18 AM CDT
>> To: Miller John
>>
>> John, We very much appreciate your support. Suits like these can
> really take the wind out of
>> your sales. It's bad for us, it's bad for the industry and it's bad
> for our economy and society.
>> As you said, the NTSB 'probable cause' is very likely spot on for this
> accident. It's sad that
>> the loss of life and injuries could have been avoided so easily.
>>
>> Again, thanks for the support. I'll pass your email on to Van.
>>
>> Best,
>> Scott Risan
>> Van's Aircraft
>>
>>> Dear Dick and all of your employees,
>>>
>>> I read with dismay the lawsuit that was filed against your company
> and FlowScan over the fatal RV10 crash in Oregon last year.
>>>
>>> After reading the actual court filed papers, it is obvious that these
> lawyers are nothing but ambulance chasing crooks and are out to get a big
> settlement from your insurance company.
>>>
>>> What a bunch of hogwash in their allegations. And to think it was
> filed on behalf of the deceased pilot/builder=B4s daughter-in-law makes it
> both sad and unbelievable. The NTSB pictures of the installation tell the
> story loud and clear that he neither followed the plans for installation of
> the fuel system nor understood how to put fuel lines together.
>>>
>>> I am one of your early RV10 builders, and am now building an RV8.
> Your kits, and the engineering work behind them, are absolutely the best as
> is your customer service and tech support.
>>>
>>> I hope that you can withstand this frivolous lawsuit without too much
> pain.
>>>
>>> There are thousands of happy RV builders world-wide who support you
> 100%!
>>>
>>> If you need support from an "amateur" builder, please call on me!
>>>
>>> John Miller
>>> Tullahoma, TN
>>>
>>> RV10 40404
>>> RV8 83329
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com> |
Maybe one of our fellow RV builders who is an attorney can get the ball rolling
for us. Id sure as heck sign it.
grumpy
> On Oct 23, 2015, at 9:08 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>
> Hey, that's not a bad idea. If someone writes up a good statement I bet we can
get at least a few hundred RV10 builders and probably a few thousand RV builders.
> Tim
>
>
>
>> On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Dan Masys wrote:
>>
>>
>> Would it be worth considering creation of an amicus brief co-signed by
>> hundreds of us RV-10 builder-pilots about the quality of the kit, and good
>> citizenship of the company?
>>
>> What the lawyers say about Vans is nothing short of libel; someone should
>> institute a counter-suit against them for $35M for the reputation damage
>> they cause to the entire industry by such ill-considered assertions played
>> out in the media before the case is tried.
>>
>> -Dan Masys
>> Not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I do recognize foul play
>>
>> ________________________________ Message 4
>> _____________________________________
>>
>>
>> From: Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
>> Subject: RV10-List: Fwd: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
>>
>> For the list, Scott has given me permission to forward his response to my
>> email to the entire list.
>>
>> I suspect that Van would appreciate such additional support from the rest of
>> the RV10 owners.
>>
>> You can send your comments to support(at)vansaircraft.com
>> . That=92s where I sent mine and Scott is
>> the one who answered.
>>
>> grumpy
>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> From: srisan(at)vansaircraft.com
>>> Subject: Re: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
>>> Date: October 21, 2015 at 9:30:18 AM CDT
>>> To: Miller John
>>>
>>> John, We very much appreciate your support. Suits like these can
>> really take the wind out of
>>> your sales. It's bad for us, it's bad for the industry and it's bad
>> for our economy and society.
>>> As you said, the NTSB 'probable cause' is very likely spot on for this
>> accident. It's sad that
>>> the loss of life and injuries could have been avoided so easily.
>>>
>>> Again, thanks for the support. I'll pass your email on to Van.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Scott Risan
>>> Van's Aircraft
>>>
>>>> Dear Dick and all of your employees,
>>>>
>>>> I read with dismay the lawsuit that was filed against your company
>> and FlowScan over the fatal RV10 crash in Oregon last year.
>>>>
>>>> After reading the actual court filed papers, it is obvious that these
>> lawyers are nothing but ambulance chasing crooks and are out to get a big
>> settlement from your insurance company.
>>>>
>>>> What a bunch of hogwash in their allegations. And to think it was
>> filed on behalf of the deceased pilot/builder=B4s daughter-in-law makes it
>> both sad and unbelievable. The NTSB pictures of the installation tell the
>> story loud and clear that he neither followed the plans for installation of
>> the fuel system nor understood how to put fuel lines together.
>>>>
>>>> I am one of your early RV10 builders, and am now building an RV8.
>> Your kits, and the engineering work behind them, are absolutely the best as
>> is your customer service and tech support.
>>>>
>>>> I hope that you can withstand this frivolous lawsuit without too much
>> pain.
>>>>
>>>> There are thousands of happy RV builders world-wide who support you
>> 100%!
>>>>
>>>> If you need support from an "amateur" builder, please call on me!
>>>>
>>>> John Miller
>>>> Tullahoma, TN
>>>>
>>>> RV10 40404
>>>> RV8 83329
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | "Berck E. Nash" <flyboy(at)gmail.com> |
I think it's a great idea. Surely there's a lawyer lurking in our midst
who could help draft one? I think good points to address would be the
quality of builder support available from vans, and the general standard of
care the community is known to take. We'd probably need to do this soon
for it to matter at all.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Hey, that's not a bad idea. If someone writes up a good statement I bet we
> can get at least a few hundred RV10 builders and probably a few thousand RV
> builders.
> Tim
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Dan Masys wrote:
> >
> >
> > Would it be worth considering creation of an amicus brief co-signed by
> > hundreds of us RV-10 builder-pilots about the quality of the kit, and
> good
> > citizenship of the company?
> >
> > What the lawyers say about Vans is nothing short of libel; someone should
> > institute a counter-suit against them for $35M for the reputation damage
> > they cause to the entire industry by such ill-considered assertions
> played
> > out in the media before the case is tried.
> >
> > -Dan Masys
> > Not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I do recognize foul play
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 4
> > _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > From: Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
> > Subject: RV10-List: Fwd: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
> >
> > For the list, Scott has given me permission to forward his response to my
> > email to the entire list.
> >
> > I suspect that Van would appreciate such additional support from the
> rest of
> > the RV10 owners.
> >
> > You can send your comments to support(at)vansaircraft.com
> > . That=92s where I sent mine and
> Scott is
> > the one who answered.
> >
> > grumpy
> >
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >> From: srisan(at)vansaircraft.com
> >> Subject: Re: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
> >> Date: October 21, 2015 at 9:30:18 AM CDT
> >> To: Miller John
> >>
> >> John, We very much appreciate your support. Suits like these can
> > really take the wind out of
> >> your sales. It's bad for us, it's bad for the industry and it's bad
> > for our economy and society.
> >> As you said, the NTSB 'probable cause' is very likely spot on for this
> > accident. It's sad that
> >> the loss of life and injuries could have been avoided so easily.
> >>
> >> Again, thanks for the support. I'll pass your email on to Van.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Scott Risan
> >> Van's Aircraft
> >>
> >>> Dear Dick and all of your employees,
> >>>
> >>> I read with dismay the lawsuit that was filed against your company
> > and FlowScan over the fatal RV10 crash in Oregon last year.
> >>>
> >>> After reading the actual court filed papers, it is obvious that these
> > lawyers are nothing but ambulance chasing crooks and are out to get a big
> > settlement from your insurance company.
> >>>
> >>> What a bunch of hogwash in their allegations. And to think it was
> > filed on behalf of the deceased pilot/builder=B4s daughter-in-law makes
> it
> > both sad and unbelievable. The NTSB pictures of the installation tell
> the
> > story loud and clear that he neither followed the plans for installation
> of
> > the fuel system nor understood how to put fuel lines together.
> >>>
> >>> I am one of your early RV10 builders, and am now building an RV8.
> > Your kits, and the engineering work behind them, are absolutely the best
> as
> > is your customer service and tech support.
> >>>
> >>> I hope that you can withstand this frivolous lawsuit without too much
> > pain.
> >>>
> >>> There are thousands of happy RV builders world-wide who support you
> > 100%!
> >>>
> >>> If you need support from an "amateur" builder, please call on me!
> >>>
> >>> John Miller
> >>> Tullahoma, TN
> >>>
> >>> RV10 40404
> >>> RV8 83329
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Bruce Breckenridge <bbreckenridge(at)gmail.com> |
There's plenty of us reading these emails. Keep it going and I'm sure more
will jump on board if an action takes place.
Bruce
40018
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:
> I think it's a great idea. Surely there's a lawyer lurking in our midst
> who could help draft one? I think good points to address would be the
> quality of builder support available from vans, and the general standard of
> care the community is known to take. We'd probably need to do this soon
> for it to matter at all.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey, that's not a bad idea. If someone writes up a good statement I bet
>> we can get at least a few hundred RV10 builders and probably a few thousand
>> RV builders.
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Dan Masys wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Would it be worth considering creation of an amicus brief co-signed by
>> > hundreds of us RV-10 builder-pilots about the quality of the kit, and
>> good
>> > citizenship of the company?
>> >
>> > What the lawyers say about Vans is nothing short of libel; someone
>> should
>> > institute a counter-suit against them for $35M for the reputation damage
>> > they cause to the entire industry by such ill-considered assertions
>> played
>> > out in the media before the case is tried.
>> >
>> > -Dan Masys
>> > Not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I do recognize foul play
>> >
>> > ________________________________ Message 4
>> > _____________________________________
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
>> > Subject: RV10-List: Fwd: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
>> >
>> > For the list, Scott has given me permission to forward his response to
>> my
>> > email to the entire list.
>> >
>> > I suspect that Van would appreciate such additional support from the
>> rest of
>> > the RV10 owners.
>> >
>> > You can send your comments to support(at)vansaircraft.com
>> > . That=92s where I sent mine and
>> Scott is
>> > the one who answered.
>> >
>> > grumpy
>> >
>> >> Begin forwarded message:
>> >>
>> >> From: srisan(at)vansaircraft.com
>> >> Subject: Re: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
>> >> Date: October 21, 2015 at 9:30:18 AM CDT
>> >> To: Miller John
>> >>
>> >> John, We very much appreciate your support. Suits like these can
>> > really take the wind out of
>> >> your sales. It's bad for us, it's bad for the industry and it's bad
>> > for our economy and society.
>> >> As you said, the NTSB 'probable cause' is very likely spot on for this
>> > accident. It's sad that
>> >> the loss of life and injuries could have been avoided so easily.
>> >>
>> >> Again, thanks for the support. I'll pass your email on to Van.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Scott Risan
>> >> Van's Aircraft
>> >>
>> >>> Dear Dick and all of your employees,
>> >>>
>> >>> I read with dismay the lawsuit that was filed against your company
>> > and FlowScan over the fatal RV10 crash in Oregon last year.
>> >>>
>> >>> After reading the actual court filed papers, it is obvious that these
>> > lawyers are nothing but ambulance chasing crooks and are out to get a
>> big
>> > settlement from your insurance company.
>> >>>
>> >>> What a bunch of hogwash in their allegations. And to think it was
>> > filed on behalf of the deceased pilot/builder=B4s daughter-in-law makes
>> it
>> > both sad and unbelievable. The NTSB pictures of the installation tell
>> the
>> > story loud and clear that he neither followed the plans for
>> installation of
>> > the fuel system nor understood how to put fuel lines together.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am one of your early RV10 builders, and am now building an RV8.
>> > Your kits, and the engineering work behind them, are absolutely the
>> best as
>> > is your customer service and tech support.
>> >>>
>> >>> I hope that you can withstand this frivolous lawsuit without too much
>> > pain.
>> >>>
>> >>> There are thousands of happy RV builders world-wide who support you
>> > 100%!
>> >>>
>> >>> If you need support from an "amateur" builder, please call on me!
>> >>>
>> >>> John Miller
>> >>> Tullahoma, TN
>> >>>
>> >>> RV10 40404
>> >>> RV8 83329
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cee Baileys windows |
| From: | "fdombroski" <f.dombroski(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Ed,
What tint did you end up ordering? Are you happy with them? I am considering
them for my next/current build. Anyone else with feedback on the C B window set?
Thanks
Frank
--------
Frank Dombroski
Multiple Offender RV-8, 7A, 10 x 2
RV-10 2.0 N46VT 2015
KSMQ Somerset Airport NJ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448231#448231
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | FS: Alternator for C-172, C-182, C-210 |
| From: | "Barry" <blmarzaa(at)gmail.com> |
Yellow tagged p/n DOFF10300J for C-172, C-182, C210 and others with 14V systems.
$390.00 which includes shipping in the ConUS, and PayPal fees.
Barry Marz
blmarzaa(at)gmail.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448241#448241
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Leikam <arplnplt(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
I=99m in.
Dave Leikam
N89DA
40496
> On Oct 23, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Bruce Breckenridge
wrote:
>
> There's plenty of us reading these emails. Keep it going and I'm sure
more will jump on board if an action takes place.
>
> Bruce
> 40018
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Berck E. Nash > wrote:
> I think it's a great idea. Surely there's a lawyer lurking in our
midst who could help draft one? I think good points to address would be
the quality of builder support available from vans, and the general
standard of care the community is known to take. We'd probably need to
do this soon for it to matter at all.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Tim Olson > wrote:
>
>
> Hey, that's not a bad idea. If someone writes up a good statement I
bet we can get at least a few hundred RV10 builders and probably a few
thousand RV builders.
> Tim
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Dan Masys > wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Would it be worth considering creation of an amicus brief co-signed
by
> > hundreds of us RV-10 builder-pilots about the quality of the kit,
and good
> > citizenship of the company?
> >
> > What the lawyers say about Vans is nothing short of libel; someone
should
> > institute a counter-suit against them for $35M for the reputation
damage
> > they cause to the entire industry by such ill-considered assertions
played
> > out in the media before the case is tried.
> >
> > -Dan Masys
> > Not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I do recognize foul
play
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 4
> > _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > From: Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com <mailto:gengrumpy(at)aol.com>>
> > Subject: RV10-List: Fwd: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
> >
> > For the list, Scott has given me permission to forward his response
to my
> > email to the entire list.
> >
> > I suspect that Van would appreciate such additional support from the
rest of
> > the RV10 owners.
> >
> > You can send your comments to support(at)vansaircraft.com
> > >.
That=92s where I sent mine and Scott is
> > the one who answered.
> >
> > grumpy
> >
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >> From: srisan(at)vansaircraft.com <mailto:srisan(at)vansaircraft.com>
> >> Subject: Re: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
> >> Date: October 21, 2015 at 9:30:18 AM CDT
> >> To: Miller John >
> >>
> >> John, We very much appreciate your support. Suits like these can
> > really take the wind out of
> >> your sales. It's bad for us, it's bad for the industry and it's
bad
> > for our economy and society.
> >> As you said, the NTSB 'probable cause' is very likely spot on for
this
> > accident. It's sad that
> >> the loss of life and injuries could have been avoided so easily.
> >>
> >> Again, thanks for the support. I'll pass your email on to Van.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Scott Risan
> >> Van's Aircraft
> >>
> >>> Dear Dick and all of your employees,
> >>>
> >>> I read with dismay the lawsuit that was filed against your company
> > and FlowScan over the fatal RV10 crash in Oregon last year.
> >>>
> >>> After reading the actual court filed papers, it is obvious that
these
> > lawyers are nothing but ambulance chasing crooks and are out to get
a big
> > settlement from your insurance company.
> >>>
> >>> What a bunch of hogwash in their allegations. And to think it was
> > filed on behalf of the deceased pilot/builder=B4s daughter-in-law
makes it
> > both sad and unbelievable. The NTSB pictures of the installation
tell the
> > story loud and clear that he neither followed the plans for
installation of
> > the fuel system nor understood how to put fuel lines together.
> >>>
> >>> I am one of your early RV10 builders, and am now building an RV8.
> > Your kits, and the engineering work behind them, are absolutely the
best as
> > is your customer service and tech support.
> >>>
> >>> I hope that you can withstand this frivolous lawsuit without too
much
> > pain.
> >>>
> >>> There are thousands of happy RV builders world-wide who support
you
> > 100%!
> >>>
> >>> If you need support from an "amateur" builder, please call on me!
> >>>
> >>> John Miller
> >>> Tullahoma, TN
> >>>
> >>> RV10 40404
> >>> RV8 83329
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ==========
> -List" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
> ==========
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
<http://forums.matronics.com/>
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
> ==========
>
>
>
>
>
>
> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
>
>
>
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
Me too.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 24, 2015, at 2:00 PM, David Leikam wrote:
>
> I=99m in.
>
> Dave Leikam
> N89DA
> 40496
>
>> On Oct 23, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Bruce Breckenridge wrote:
>>
>> There's plenty of us reading these emails. Keep it going and I'm sure mo
re will jump on board if an action takes place.
>>
>> Bruce
>> 40018
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:
>>> I think it's a great idea. Surely there's a lawyer lurking in our midst
who could help draft one? I think good points to address would be the qual
ity of builder support available from vans, and the general standard of care
the community is known to take. We'd probably need to do this soon for it t
o matter at all.
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey, that's not a bad idea. If someone writes up a good statement I bet
we can get at least a few hundred RV10 builders and probably a few thousand
RV builders.
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Dan Masys wrot
e:
>>>> >
>
>>>> >
>>>> > Would it be worth considering creation of an amicus brief co-signed b
y
>>>> > hundreds of us RV-10 builder-pilots about the quality of the kit, and
good
>>>> > citizenship of the company?
>>>> >
>>>> > What the lawyers say about Vans is nothing short of libel; someone sh
ould
>>>> > institute a counter-suit against them for $35M for the reputation dam
age
>>>> > they cause to the entire industry by such ill-considered assertions p
layed
>>>> > out in the media before the case is tried.
>>>> >
>>>> > -Dan Masys
>>>> > Not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I do recognize foul play
>>>> >
>>>> > ________________________________ Message 4
>>>> > _____________________________________
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > From: Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
>>>> > Subject: RV10-List: Fwd: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
>>>> >
>>>> > For the list, Scott has given me permission to forward his response t
o my
>>>> > email to the entire list.
>>>> >
>>>> > I suspect that Van would appreciate such additional support from the r
est of
>>>> > the RV10 owners.
>>>> >
>>>> > You can send your comments to support(at)vansaircraft.com
>>>> > . That=92s where I sent mine and S
cott is
>>>> > the one who answered.
>>>> >
>>>> > grumpy
>>>> >
>>>> >> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> From: srisan(at)vansaircraft.com
>>>> >> Subject: Re: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
>>>> >> Date: October 21, 2015 at 9:30:18 AM CDT
>>>> >> To: Miller John
>>>> >>
>>>> >> John, We very much appreciate your support. Suits like these can
>>>> > really take the wind out of
>>>> >> your sales. It's bad for us, it's bad for the industry and it's bad
>>>> > for our economy and society.
>>>> >> As you said, the NTSB 'probable cause' is very likely spot on for th
is
>>>> > accident. It's sad that
>>>> >> the loss of life and injuries could have been avoided so easily.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Again, thanks for the support. I'll pass your email on to Van.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Best,
>>>> >> Scott Risan
>>>> >> Van's Aircraft
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Dear Dick and all of your employees,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I read with dismay the lawsuit that was filed against your company
>>>> > and FlowScan over the fatal RV10 crash in Oregon last year.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> After reading the actual court filed papers, it is obvious that the
se
>>>> > lawyers are nothing but ambulance chasing crooks and are out to get a
big
>>>> > settlement from your insurance company.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> What a bunch of hogwash in their allegations. And to think it was
>>>> > filed on behalf of the deceased pilot/builder=B4s daughter-in-law m
akes it
>>>> > both sad and unbelievable. The NTSB pictures of the installation tel
l the
>>>> > story loud and clear that he neither followed the plans for installat
ion of
>>>> > the fuel system nor understood how to put fuel lines together.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I am one of your early RV10 builders, and am now building an RV8.
>>>> > Your kits, and the engineering work behind them, are absolutely the b
est as
>>>> > is your customer service and tech support.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I hope that you can withstand this frivolous lawsuit without too mu
ch
>>>> > pain.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> There are thousands of happy RV builders world-wide who support you
>>>> > 100%!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> If you need support from an "amateur" builder, please call on me!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> John Miller
>>>> >>> Tullahoma, TN
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> RV10 40404
>>>> >>> RV8 83329
>>>> >>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ==========
>>>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Na
vigator?RV10-List
>>>> ==========
>>>> FORUMS -
>>>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>> ==========
>>>> b Site -
>>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
>>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>> class="">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> class="">http://forums.matronics.com
>> class="">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DLM" <dlm34077(at)gmail.com> |
Having used ADSB in/out for the last six months, I believe there is a
problem coming. At airports below radar coverage there are going to be gaps
in the traffic info after 2020. My aircraft is a hybrid system which uses
1090 for broadcast and receives both 1090/30 and 987 (UAT) It is my
understanding that the on board receivers receive only on about two meters
and the ADSB transceivers use the same about two meter frequency.
At E60 radar coverage from PHX TRACON and ABQ center extends down to about
2500MSL. The airport surface is about 1500 MSL. If an aircraft using the UAT
frequency is preparing to takeoff and I am preparing to land. I don't
believe he will be able to "see" me on his traffic since I will be
transmitting on the 1090 channel. I will be able to "see" him on my system
because I receive directly both systems. Even though we both should be able
to be "listening" to an ADSB transceiver on about two meters, the
rebroadcast will not show either aircraft because both are below radar
coverage for PHX TRACON and ABQ center. The same sort of thing occurs at
KAVQ and others. The problem is acute in areas that are sparsely populated
with mountainous terrain.
Any others experience with this using ADSB?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
First of all, there is no '2 meter' broadcast. You listed the frequencies used
- both around 1GHz or 30 cm wavelength.
Second, what matters is the location of ADSB rebroadcast stations (-C). There may
be one at your airport.
But, generally speaking, you are correct. Low aircraft may be unable to receive
ground station broadcasts. Of course, unless you are in class B, C, or the class
B mode C veil, or above 10,000', there is no requirement for an aircraft to
be ADSB equipped at all.
You still need to see and avoid.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448251#448251
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Philips" <jack(at)bedfordlandings.com> |
Oh my God! You mean we'll actually have to look out our windshields,
instead of watching cockpit TV?
Don't get too reliant on ADSB. At those same airports with poor ADSB
coverage, there are still plenty of NORDO airplanes flying that ADSB will
NEVER see. While flying my Pietenpol Air Camper, I was almost run over by a
Diamond DA-40 whose driver (I won't call him a pilot) was too busy playing
with his glass cockpit to look out the window for traffic. See and Be Seen
is still the law of the land.
Jack Phillips
#40610 Fuselage
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DLM
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 4:41 PM
Subject: RV10-List: ADSB
Having used ADSB in/out for the last six months, I believe there is a
problem coming. At airports below radar coverage there are going to be gaps
in the traffic info after 2020. My aircraft is a hybrid system which uses
1090 for broadcast and receives both 1090/30 and 987 (UAT) It is my
understanding that the on board receivers receive only on about two meters
and the ADSB transceivers use the same about two meter frequency.
At E60 radar coverage from PHX TRACON and ABQ center extends down to about
2500MSL. The airport surface is about 1500 MSL. If an aircraft using the UAT
frequency is preparing to takeoff and I am preparing to land. I don't
believe he will be able to "see" me on his traffic since I will be
transmitting on the 1090 channel. I will be able to "see" him on my system
because I receive directly both systems. Even though we both should be able
to be "listening" to an ADSB transceiver on about two meters, the
rebroadcast will not show either aircraft because both are below radar
coverage for PHX TRACON and ABQ center. The same sort of thing occurs at
KAVQ and others. The problem is acute in areas that are sparsely populated
with mountainous terrain.
Any others experience with this using ADSB?
_____
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Correct. Radar is mostly irrelevant, and many terminal radar sites will
be shut down after 2020.
The ground stations are only designed to provide coverage to aircraft at
or above 1500 AGL, so there is no coverage for traffic taking off or
landing unless there happens to be a ground station very nearby. At FFZ
you are fortunate to have a ground station right there. It is too bad
there won't be all that much coverage at CGZ with all the instrument
training and practice that happens there.
On 10/24/2015 3:00 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
> First of all, there is no '2 meter' broadcast. You listed the frequencies used
- both around 1GHz or 30 cm wavelength.
> Second, what matters is the location of ADSB rebroadcast stations (-C). There
may be one at your airport.
> But, generally speaking, you are correct. Low aircraft may be unable to receive
ground station broadcasts. Of course, unless you are in class B, C, or the
class B mode C veil, or above 10,000', there is no requirement for an aircraft
to be ADSB equipped at all.
> You still need to see and avoid.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448251#448251
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 10/24/2015 4:40 PM, DLM wrote:
> The airport surface is about 1500 MSL. If an aircraft using the UAT
> frequency is preparing to takeoff and I am preparing to land. I don't
> believe he will be able to "see" me on his traffic since I will be
> transmitting on the 1090 channel. I will be able to "see" him on my
> system because I receive directly both systems. Even though we both
> should be able to be "listening" to an ADSB transceiver on about two
> meters, the rebroadcast will not show either aircraft because both are
> below radar coverage for PHX TRACON and ABQ center. The same sort of
> thing occurs at KAVQ and others. The problem is acute in areas that are
> sparsely populated with mountainous terrain.
What frequency do you believe is being used near two meters? My
understanding is that UATs are using 987 Mhz and ES transponders are
using 1090 Mhz, and those are the only two frequencies being used for
ADS-B. The ground station rebroadcasters are listening/transmitting
between these two frequencies.
I believe you are correct in terms of the aircraft only receiving on 987
Mhz not being able to see you transmitting on 1090 Mhz because there
will be no rebroadcast ground station in range. It is for that reason
that I believe most people are equipping with receivers that cover both
frequencies.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com> |
Without maligning scores of builders out there. The message should be that
Experimental Built Aircraft are NOT Part 23 Certificated Production
Aircraft and any builder using RTV rubber sealant in their fuel system
needs to stop and seek free EAA Technical Assistance. Atta Boy's for VANS
does not reduce the accident, incident and loss of life rate one IOTA.
Too often we see stupidity in a build and then I am reminded that each
builder makes the decisions and choices "they ultimately OWN". VANS is
only a well respected parts provider. I have yet to find them supplying
RTV or recommending its use on fuel fittings.
Portland, Oregon attorneys will litigate anyone and anything - anytime to
"Keep Portland WEIRD".
John Cox
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:00 AM, David Leikam wrote:
> I=99m in.
>
> Dave Leikam
> N89DA
> 40496
>
> On Oct 23, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Bruce Breckenridge
> wrote:
>
> There's plenty of us reading these emails. Keep it going and I'm sure
> more will jump on board if an action takes place.
>
> Bruce
> 40018
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:
>
>> I think it's a great idea. Surely there's a lawyer lurking in our midst
>> who could help draft one? I think good points to address would be the
>> quality of builder support available from vans, and the general standard
of
>> care the community is known to take. We'd probably need to do this soon
>> for it to matter at all.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hey, that's not a bad idea. If someone writes up a good statement I bet
>>> we can get at least a few hundred RV10 builders and probably a few thou
sand
>>> RV builders.
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Dan Masys
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>
>>> >
>>> > Would it be worth considering creation of an amicus brief co-signed b
y
>>> > hundreds of us RV-10 builder-pilots about the quality of the kit, and
>>> good
>>> > citizenship of the company?
>>> >
>>> > What the lawyers say about Vans is nothing short of libel; someone
>>> should
>>> > institute a counter-suit against them for $35M for the reputation
>>> damage
>>> > they cause to the entire industry by such ill-considered assertions
>>> played
>>> > out in the media before the case is tried.
>>> >
>>> > -Dan Masys
>>> > Not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I do recognize foul play
>>> >
>>> > ________________________________ Message 4
>>> > _____________________________________
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > From: Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
>>> > Subject: RV10-List: Fwd: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
>>> >
>>> > For the list, Scott has given me permission to forward his response t
o
>>> my
>>> > email to the entire list.
>>> >
>>> > I suspect that Van would appreciate such additional support from the
>>> rest of
>>> > the RV10 owners.
>>> >
>>> > You can send your comments to support(at)vansaircraft.com
>>> > . That=92s where I sent mine and
>>> Scott is
>>> > the one who answered.
>>> >
>>> > grumpy
>>> >
>>> >> Begin forwarded message:
>>> >>
>>> >> From: srisan(at)vansaircraft.com
>>> >> Subject: Re: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
>>> >> Date: October 21, 2015 at 9:30:18 AM CDT
>>> >> To: Miller John
>>> >>
>>> >> John, We very much appreciate your support. Suits like these can
>>> > really take the wind out of
>>> >> your sales. It's bad for us, it's bad for the industry and it's bad
>>> > for our economy and society.
>>> >> As you said, the NTSB 'probable cause' is very likely spot on for th
is
>>> > accident. It's sad that
>>> >> the loss of life and injuries could have been avoided so easily.
>>> >>
>>> >> Again, thanks for the support. I'll pass your email on to Van.
>>> >>
>>> >> Best,
>>> >> Scott Risan
>>> >> Van's Aircraft
>>> >>
>>> >>> Dear Dick and all of your employees,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I read with dismay the lawsuit that was filed against your company
>>> > and FlowScan over the fatal RV10 crash in Oregon last year.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> After reading the actual court filed papers, it is obvious that the
se
>>> > lawyers are nothing but ambulance chasing crooks and are out to get a
>>> big
>>> > settlement from your insurance company.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What a bunch of hogwash in their allegations. And to think it was
>>> > filed on behalf of the deceased pilot/builder=B4s daughter-in-law
>>> makes it
>>> > both sad and unbelievable. The NTSB pictures of the installation tel
l
>>> the
>>> > story loud and clear that he neither followed the plans for
>>> installation of
>>> > the fuel system nor understood how to put fuel lines together.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am one of your early RV10 builders, and am now building an RV8.
>>> > Your kits, and the engineering work behind them, are absolutely the
>>> best as
>>> > is your customer service and tech support.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I hope that you can withstand this frivolous lawsuit without too mu
ch
>>> > pain.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> There are thousands of happy RV builders world-wide who support you
>>> > 100%!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If you need support from an "amateur" builder, please call on me!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> John Miller
>>> >>> Tullahoma, TN
>>> >>>
>>> >>> RV10 40404
>>> >>> RV8 83329
>>> >>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> ==========
>>> FORUMS -
>>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> b Site -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> *
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
> class="">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> class="">http://forums.matronics.com
> class="">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
===========
onics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
===========
===========
om/contribution>
===========
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)gmail.com> |
Been talking to some Canadian RV10er's and we all feel the same. Van's
doesn't deserve this BS lawsuit. Count us in too......
Rick
#40956
Southampton, Ont
Final assembly in progress.........
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 9:45 PM, John Cox wrote:
> Without maligning scores of builders out there. The message should be
> that Experimental Built Aircraft are NOT Part 23 Certificated Production
> Aircraft and any builder using RTV rubber sealant in their fuel system
> needs to stop and seek free EAA Technical Assistance. Atta Boy's for VAN
S
> does not reduce the accident, incident and loss of life rate one IOTA.
>
> Too often we see stupidity in a build and then I am reminded that each
> builder makes the decisions and choices "they ultimately OWN". VANS is
> only a well respected parts provider. I have yet to find them supplying
> RTV or recommending its use on fuel fittings.
>
> Portland, Oregon attorneys will litigate anyone and anything - anytime t
o
> "Keep Portland WEIRD".
>
> John Cox
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:00 AM, David Leikam wrote
:
>
>> I=99m in.
>>
>> Dave Leikam
>> N89DA
>> 40496
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Bruce Breckenridge
>> wrote:
>>
>> There's plenty of us reading these emails. Keep it going and I'm sure
>> more will jump on board if an action takes place.
>>
>> Bruce
>> 40018
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:
>>
>>> I think it's a great idea. Surely there's a lawyer lurking in our mids
t
>>> who could help draft one? I think good points to address would be the
>>> quality of builder support available from vans, and the general standar
d of
>>> care the community is known to take. We'd probably need to do this soo
n
>>> for it to matter at all.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey, that's not a bad idea. If someone writes up a good statement I be
t
>>>> we can get at least a few hundred RV10 builders and probably a few tho
usand
>>>> RV builders.
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Dan Masys
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
u
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Would it be worth considering creation of an amicus brief co-signed
by
>>>> > hundreds of us RV-10 builder-pilots about the quality of the kit, an
d
>>>> good
>>>> > citizenship of the company?
>>>> >
>>>> > What the lawyers say about Vans is nothing short of libel; someone
>>>> should
>>>> > institute a counter-suit against them for $35M for the reputation
>>>> damage
>>>> > they cause to the entire industry by such ill-considered assertions
>>>> played
>>>> > out in the media before the case is tried.
>>>> >
>>>> > -Dan Masys
>>>> > Not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I do recognize foul pla
y
>>>> >
>>>> > ________________________________ Message 4
>>>> > _____________________________________
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > From: Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
>>>> > Subject: RV10-List: Fwd: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
>>>> >
>>>> > For the list, Scott has given me permission to forward his response
>>>> to my
>>>> > email to the entire list.
>>>> >
>>>> > I suspect that Van would appreciate such additional support from the
>>>> rest of
>>>> > the RV10 owners.
>>>> >
>>>> > You can send your comments to support(at)vansaircraft.com
>>>> > . That=92s where I sent mine and
>>>> Scott is
>>>> > the one who answered.
>>>> >
>>>> > grumpy
>>>> >
>>>> >> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> From: srisan(at)vansaircraft.com
>>>> >> Subject: Re: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
>>>> >> Date: October 21, 2015 at 9:30:18 AM CDT
>>>> >> To: Miller John
>>>> >>
>>>> >> John, We very much appreciate your support. Suits like these can
>>>> > really take the wind out of
>>>> >> your sales. It's bad for us, it's bad for the industry and it's ba
d
>>>> > for our economy and society.
>>>> >> As you said, the NTSB 'probable cause' is very likely spot on for
>>>> this
>>>> > accident. It's sad that
>>>> >> the loss of life and injuries could have been avoided so easily.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Again, thanks for the support. I'll pass your email on to Van.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Best,
>>>> >> Scott Risan
>>>> >> Van's Aircraft
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Dear Dick and all of your employees,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I read with dismay the lawsuit that was filed against your company
>>>> > and FlowScan over the fatal RV10 crash in Oregon last year.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> After reading the actual court filed papers, it is obvious that
>>>> these
>>>> > lawyers are nothing but ambulance chasing crooks and are out to get
a
>>>> big
>>>> > settlement from your insurance company.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> What a bunch of hogwash in their allegations. And to think it was
>>>> > filed on behalf of the deceased pilot/builder=B4s daughter-in-law
>>>> makes it
>>>> > both sad and unbelievable. The NTSB pictures of the installation
>>>> tell the
>>>> > story loud and clear that he neither followed the plans for
>>>> installation of
>>>> > the fuel system nor understood how to put fuel lines together.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I am one of your early RV10 builders, and am now building an RV8.
>>>> > Your kits, and the engineering work behind them, are absolutely the
>>>> best as
>>>> > is your customer service and tech support.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I hope that you can withstand this frivolous lawsuit without too
>>>> much
>>>> > pain.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> There are thousands of happy RV builders world-wide who support yo
u
>>>> > 100%!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> If you need support from an "amateur" builder, please call on me!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> John Miller
>>>> >>> Tullahoma, TN
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> RV10 40404
>>>> >>> RV8 83329
>>>> >>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ==========
>>>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
>>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> ==========
>>>> FORUMS -
>>>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>> ==========
>>>> b Site -
>>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion
>>>> ==========
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>> *
>>
>> class="">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> class="">http://forums.matronics.com
>> class="">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
>>
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
===========
onics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
===========
===========
om/contribution>
===========
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com> |
Count me in too,
Lenny
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448262#448262
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Soundproofing the QB fuselage |
| From: | "whodja" <whodja(at)gmail.com> |
Has anyone installed soundproofing in a QB fuselage? I am trying to figure out
if I can even remove the fwd cp floor pans to install sound proofing. Any suggestions
welcome.
Thanks
Tal
Fuselage/empennage together
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448265#448265
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Soundproofing the QB fuselage |
| From: | "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I am sure if you use the search function for this forum, or the VAF RV-10 forum
you will find numerous posts on this subject, but to answer your question. Yes,
many folks have insulated under the front floor and also some have installed
fireproofing material such as fiberfrax etc. under the floor pan and in the
tunnel. I insulated my entire QB fuse. I am not sure how much sound deadening
I really accomplished, or whether I would do it again, but I can tell you it
stays nice and warm in the cold winters. It's not easy to remove the floor,
but it can be done.
--------
Bill
WA0SYV
Aviation Partners, LLC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448266#448266
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Soundproofing the QB fuselage |
| From: | "whodja" <whodja(at)gmail.com> |
Temp insulation was also another benefit that I would like.
Thanks Bill
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448267#448267
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | "Hugo" <Gommone7(at)bellsouth.net> |
Hey Guys
At This point I thinks all the necessary ingredients are here to start a serious
Action to stop before this attack against home built community start,
And I thinks some member with a good idea of communications can be involved
Every body ,regardless of plane they built.
Because this is not against Vans,it's against the future of our rights to build
our planes and use with some relative freedom.
Then ,my first idea , and I hope plenty will come.
Is choose the person will hold the money,yes we need money,
I will start to donate to the future trust account a 11 ft brand new roll up inflatable
boat for auction ( cost 3k) ,for start the donations.
It's my first action idea,
,one note ,we need to be careful and not allow the big boys for not profit to
Hijack the real reasons why we do this.
Hope some one agree we need to act immediately ,and start shooting real action
ideas.
Please forgive my writing accent.
Hugo
--------
My wife it's always right
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448268#448268
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
I think we all are wasting our time doing anything unless we are cooperating with
the legal team representing Vans.
We can sign documents, make statements, do whatever we want. But if it doesn't
fit in their plan and their message and their strategy, then we're accomplishing
nothing significant.
A better approach is to work with the legal team, present what we can offer, and
let them write the document in their words (if they choose to present it), with
their points they want to reenforce, and make sure that any efforts we make
actually dovetail with their strategy.
A document drafted by their legal team can be guaranteed to support their message.
A document draft from the outside could submarine their points and potentially
case.
It's better to coordinate with those actually representing those in the court room.
Phil
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 25, 2015, at 10:08 AM, Hugo wrote:
>
>
> Hey Guys
> At This point I thinks all the necessary ingredients are here to start a serious
> Action to stop before this attack against home built community start,
> And I thinks some member with a good idea of communications can be involved
> Every body ,regardless of plane they built.
> Because this is not against Vans,it's against the future of our rights to build
our planes and use with some relative freedom.
> Then ,my first idea , and I hope plenty will come.
> Is choose the person will hold the money,yes we need money,
> I will start to donate to the future trust account a 11 ft brand new roll up
inflatable boat for auction ( cost 3k) ,for start the donations.
> It's my first action idea,
> ,one note ,we need to be careful and not allow the big boys for not profit to
> Hijack the real reasons why we do this.
> Hope some one agree we need to act immediately ,and start shooting real action
ideas.
> Please forgive my writing accent.
> Hugo
>
> --------
> My wife it's always right
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448268#448268
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
+1 on that. Very sensible.
Tim
Ps: with so many anti aviation things these days I feel we have a responsibility
to participate when we can. Like when EAA and AOPA do
The calls to action, I try to actually send faxes and emails to my elected representatives.
It may not work, but what will never work is being silent.
So if someone does indeed take this to the legal team and there is a mass signed
letter, I'm in. It never pays to be silent.
> On Oct 25, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
>
> I think we all are wasting our time doing anything unless we are cooperating
with the legal team representing Vans.
>
> We can sign documents, make statements, do whatever we want. But if it doesn't
fit in their plan and their message and their strategy, then we're accomplishing
nothing significant.
>
> A better approach is to work with the legal team, present what we can offer,
and let them write the document in their words (if they choose to present it),
with their points they want to reenforce, and make sure that any efforts we make
actually dovetail with their strategy.
>
> A document drafted by their legal team can be guaranteed to support their message.
A document draft from the outside could submarine their points and potentially
case.
>
> It's better to coordinate with those actually representing those in the court
room.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 10:08 AM, Hugo wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hey Guys
>> At This point I thinks all the necessary ingredients are here to start a serious
>> Action to stop before this attack against home built community start,
>> And I thinks some member with a good idea of communications can be involved
>> Every body ,regardless of plane they built.
>> Because this is not against Vans,it's against the future of our rights to build
our planes and use with some relative freedom.
>> Then ,my first idea , and I hope plenty will come.
>> Is choose the person will hold the money,yes we need money,
>> I will start to donate to the future trust account a 11 ft brand new roll up
inflatable boat for auction ( cost 3k) ,for start the donations.
>> It's my first action idea,
>> ,one note ,we need to be careful and not allow the big boys for not profit to
>> Hijack the real reasons why we do this.
>> Hope some one agree we need to act immediately ,and start shooting real action
ideas.
>> Please forgive my writing accent.
>> Hugo
>>
>> --------
>> My wife it's always right
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448268#448268
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: lawsuit defense was $35M Lawsuit defense was Re: NTSB - Probable |
Cause
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
+1 for me too. I don't have the time (or inclination really) to spend
on things that never will matter in the long run. One of our more
eloquent builders might talk to Vans covering the points in this
'defense' thread and let them pass on the info. Many on this list have
the expertise to actually become an 'expert witness'.
So my vote is to let Vans know and let them put the strategy together.
Linn .... painting
PS I changed the subject
On 10/25/2015 1:18 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> +1 on that. Very sensible.
> Tim
>
> Ps: with so many anti aviation things these days I feel we have a responsibility
to participate when we can. Like when EAA and AOPA do
> The calls to action, I try to actually send faxes and emails to my elected representatives.
It may not work, but what will never work is being silent.
> So if someone does indeed take this to the legal team and there is a mass signed
letter, I'm in. It never pays to be silent.
>
>
>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think we all are wasting our time doing anything unless we are cooperating
with the legal team representing Vans.
>>
>> We can sign documents, make statements, do whatever we want. But if it doesn't
fit in their plan and their message and their strategy, then we're accomplishing
nothing significant.
>>
>> A better approach is to work with the legal team, present what we can offer,
and let them write the document in their words (if they choose to present it),
with their points they want to reenforce, and make sure that any efforts we
make actually dovetail with their strategy.
>>
>> A document drafted by their legal team can be guaranteed to support their message.
A document draft from the outside could submarine their points and potentially
case.
>>
>> It's better to coordinate with those actually representing those in the court
room.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 10:08 AM, Hugo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Guys
>>> At This point I thinks all the necessary ingredients are here to start a serious
>>> Action to stop before this attack against home built community start,
>>> And I thinks some member with a good idea of communications can be involved
>>> Every body ,regardless of plane they built.
>>> Because this is not against Vans,it's against the future of our rights to build
our planes and use with some relative freedom.
>>> Then ,my first idea , and I hope plenty will come.
>>> Is choose the person will hold the money,yes we need money,
>>> I will start to donate to the future trust account a 11 ft brand new roll up
inflatable boat for auction ( cost 3k) ,for start the donations.
>>> It's my first action idea,
>>> ,one note ,we need to be careful and not allow the big boys for not profit
to
>>> Hijack the real reasons why we do this.
>>> Hope some one agree we need to act immediately ,and start shooting real action
ideas.
>>> Please forgive my writing accent.
>>> Hugo
>>>
>>> --------
>>> My wife it's always right
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448268#448268
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | "Hugo" <Gommone7(at)bellsouth.net> |
Hi Phill
You see ,with your approach the bad guys and the standard legal system already
win,
Let me tell you how this will go so we don't waste any more effort in discuss and
do nothing.
The insurance will send a good guy to talk with the bad guy,the bad guy will try
to waste the more time as possible, as you know they charge by hour.
Then after hundred of billing hours the good guy and the bad guy will seat at the
table with the Mediator and after another 10 or more hours they will arrange
may be 5 million to suck from the insurance.
At this point the bad guy already billed the unfortunate lady 4.8 mill
The insurance will have a bill may be for 3 mill.
Vans will receive an increase in the premium because they built very unsafe kits;
the other insurance will rise the premium to all kit companies because now
they can be suit and on ,and on......
Guess who loose.
The guys who dream to build a plane in the garage.
I can go for days here to explain how the legal system works.
Now.
If really any body can suit any body here it's the catch in our favor.
May be there is a good guy in this list who built an Rv or any other kit and remember
what he swear when he graduate and could tell us how (independently of
this lawsuit to Vans)
We can go after this bad guy and start make him loosing money and time
And defend our rights.
Because after all we are in the Land of the Free
And we have freedom of Speech .......or it's only for the Show?
For the records:
10 years ago we hire a good guy(girl) with 10 k we collected from neighbors
And we stop a development behind our houses.
I thinks if we can act as a single entity and suit this guy ,we can send a good
Message,
Who knows
May be Cessna; Cirrus; AFS and others who can be affected or punish for the some
times corrupt legal system may join us!
--------
My wife it's always right
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448276#448276
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: $35M Lawsuit was Re: NTSB - Probable Cause |
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
The problem is that if you don't work with them to on the document, it will
never get admitted in court. You can't just walk in there and drop it on
the table.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Hugo wrote:
>
> Hi Phill
> You see ,with your approach the bad guys and the standard legal system
> already win,
> Let me tell you how this will go so we don't waste any more effort in
> discuss and do nothing.
> The insurance will send a good guy to talk with the bad guy,the bad guy
> will try to waste the more time as possible, as you know they charge by
> hour.
> Then after hundred of billing hours the good guy and the bad guy will seat
> at the table with the Mediator and after another 10 or more hours they will
> arrange may be 5 million to suck from the insurance.
> At this point the bad guy already billed the unfortunate lady 4.8 mill
> The insurance will have a bill may be for 3 mill.
> Vans will receive an increase in the premium because they built very
> unsafe kits; the other insurance will rise the premium to all kit
> companies because now they can be suit and on ,and on......
> Guess who loose.
> The guys who dream to build a plane in the garage.
> I can go for days here to explain how the legal system works.
> Now.
> If really any body can suit any body here it's the catch in our favor.
> May be there is a good guy in this list who built an Rv or any other kit
> and remember what he swear when he graduate and could tell us how
> (independently of this lawsuit to Vans)
> We can go after this bad guy and start make him loosing money and time
> And defend our rights.
> Because after all we are in the Land of the Free
> And we have freedom of Speech .......or it's only for the Show?
> For the records:
> 10 years ago we hire a good guy(girl) with 10 k we collected from neighbors
> And we stop a development behind our houses.
> I thinks if we can act as a single entity and suit this guy ,we can send a
> good
> Message,
> Who knows
> May be Cessna; Cirrus; AFS and others who can be affected or punish for
> the some times corrupt legal system may join us!
>
> --------
> My wife it's always right
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448276#448276
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Soundproofing the QB fuselage |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
I think Bill's comments are right on. Even a minimal effort seems to improve the
thermal insulation. But it takes a major effort (and added weight) to make any
real difference in noise. One issue is the way most humans judge sound levels.
It takes about a 30% decrease in sound intensity before the average person
can detect any change at all!
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448281#448281
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Soundproofing the QB fuselage |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
The general rules of thumb are that it takes 3 dBA change for most humans
to detect. 10 dBA is an order of magnitude change, roughly 50% less sound
energy in the decreasing direction.
All noise scales are logarithmic.
If you can get your cabin from 100 dBA to 90 you will think it is a major
change.
There are a lot of factors involved. Frequency, vs pulsation. Exhaust vs
prop noise. Noise through windshield vs noise through firewall vs noise
through belly or fuselage sides. Noise also decreases fairly rapidly with
distance. Back seat should be less than front seat. Does your insulation
tend to reduce vibration of the exterior skins or not.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
> I think Bill's comments are right on. Even a minimal effort seems to
> improve the thermal insulation. But it takes a major effort (and added
> weight) to make any real difference in noise. One issue is the way most
> humans judge sound levels. It takes about a 30% decrease in sound intensity
> before the average person can detect any change at all!
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448281#448281
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Soundproofing the QB fuselage |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
I think the best soundproofing is 4 real good headsets!!
I'm amazed at the noise in any airplane when you remove the headset.
I think the Ps and Cs limit soundproofing to a firewall blanket on the
cabin side.
Linn
On 10/25/2015 10:18 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> The general rules of thumb are that it takes 3 dBA change for most
> humans to detect. 10 dBA is an order of magnitude change, roughly 50%
> less sound energy in the decreasing direction.
> All noise scales are logarithmic.
> If you can get your cabin from 100 dBA to 90 you will think it is a
> major change.
> There are a lot of factors involved. Frequency, vs pulsation. Exhaust
> vs prop noise. Noise through windshield vs noise through firewall vs
> noise through belly or fuselage sides. Noise also decreases fairly
> rapidly with distance. Back seat should be less than front seat. Does
> your insulation tend to reduce vibration of the exterior skins or not.
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Bob Turner > wrote:
>
> >
>
> I think Bill's comments are right on. Even a minimal effort seems
> to improve the thermal insulation. But it takes a major effort
> (and added weight) to make any real difference in noise. One issue
> is the way most humans judge sound levels. It takes about a 30%
> decrease in sound intensity before the average person can detect
> any change at all!
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Soundproofing the QB fuselage |
| From: | "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net> |
I used Abesco FP200. It is easy to install, and it really gives the cabin floors
a solid feel. No cold feet, either.
http://www.fp200abesco.com/
John
--------
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448285#448285
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/fp200_502.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | More on the RV10 lawsuit |
Van's Lawsuit Seen As Attack On Kit Industry
<http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Vans-Lawsuit-Seen-As-Attack-On-Kit-I
ndustry-225066-1.html>
By Russ Niles
Van's Aircraft is warning that a $35 million lawsuit filed against it in
Oregon might actually be an indictment of the whole kit aircraft
business. The family of a four-year-old girl who died in an RV-10 flown
by her step-grandfather claims the kit manufacturer creates the
unreasonable expectation that people who lack skills and training can
successfully build safe aircraft. In an interview with Reuters, Van's
president, Scott Risan, said it's not just Van's that will be on trial.
"We do a really good job with the safety of the airplanes," Risan told
Reuters. "It's up to the builder to use good judgment when they are
building and maintaining the airplane. The lawsuit seems to be kind of
attacking the industry in general and that's unfortunate." The NTSB
blamed the accident on a blocked fuel line followed by a stall.
Doug Nebert, a well-known and experienced RV builder from Newport,
Oregon, was taking off from Toledo, Oregon, when the aircraft had engine
trouble on May 31, 2014, and crashed in the parking lot of a paper mill.
Nebert and his four-year-old step-granddaughter, Zoe Wahl, died. Wahl's
mother, April Gleason, was severely injured. Gleason's lawyer, Matthew
Clarke, told Reuters the building instructions are inadequate and it
also named Floscan Instruments in the suit, claiming the fuel flow
transducer it supplied was unsafe. The NTSB blamed Nebert, however. It
said the accident was caused by a loss of engine power due to fuel
starvation from the blocked fuel line, likely from a bead of silicone in
a recently installed fuel flow transducer. It blamed the blocked fuel
line on Nebert's "improper maintenance practices" and the accident on
his "subsequent failure to maintain adequate airspeed while attempting a
forced landing." The suit says there should have been a bypass around
the transducer to prevent a blockage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David" <dlm34077(at)cox.net> |
I hear much weeping and wailing about the lawsuit against Vans; I am sorry
they are entangled with the legal system here in the USA which always looks
for someone else to blame; preferably someone who has some assets. Builders
who have significant personal assets should investigate the partnership laws
of their respective states. The partnership laws are usually set up to be a
physician/attorney protection arrangement. If they, in court, are able to
breach those laws they commit financial hari kari by overriding the laws on
the books to protect their financial assets. Partnership laws usually
provide that partnerships can be sued but any payout may come sometime in
the future (well outside the lifetime of the plaintiff/attorney) and any
accrued payout is taxable income in the year accrued. Precedents count.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Miller John <gengrumpy(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | The Oregon RV10 lawsuit |
As suggested by others, I reached out to Scott this am to offer our
support to their legal team.
I=92ll let you all know how we can help whenever Scott or their legal
team decides what they need.
grumpy
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: srisan(at)vansaircraft.com
> Subject: Re: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
> Date: October 26, 2015 at 12:18:34 PM CDT
> To: Miller John
>
> John, I've passed this same question on to our primary lawyer. He
hasn't
> responded yet but I'll certainly let you know if there is something
we'd like
> you or others to do. Again, we REALLY appreciate the support! It is
a true
> morale booster.
>
> Best, Scott/Van's
>
>> Scott,
>>
>> There is now a lot of chatter on the RV10 builder=B4s net about
wanting to help you guys.
>>
>> Is there a way we builders can help support your legal team?
>>
>> We are ready and willing to help - just tell us how we can help!
>>
>> John
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit |
Does Vans make their customers who purchase a kit or kit components, sign a l
iability release or a hold harmless agreement? Not that a good attorney can'
t get around it.
Justin
> On Oct 26, 2015, at 11:29, Miller John wrote:
>
> As suggested by others, I reached out to Scott this am to offer our suppor
t to their legal team.
>
> I=99ll let you all know how we can help whenever Scott or their lega
l team decides what they need.
>
> grumpy
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: srisan(at)vansaircraft.com
>> Subject: Re: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit
>> Date: October 26, 2015 at 12:18:34 PM CDT
>> To: Miller John
>>
>> John, I've passed this same question on to our primary lawyer. He hasn'
t
>> responded yet but I'll certainly let you know if there is something we'd l
ike
>> you or others to do. Again, we REALLY appreciate the support! It is a t
rue
>> morale booster.
>>
>> Best, Scott/Van's
>>
>>> Scott,
>>>
>>> There is now a lot of chatter on the RV10 builder=C2=B4s net about wanti
ng to help you guys.
>>>
>>> Is there a way we builders can help support your legal team?
>>>
>>> We are ready and willing to help - just tell us how we can help!
>>>
>>> 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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The Oregon RV10 lawsuit |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
One issue with 'hold harmless' agreements is that in most states one person may
not sign away the rights of others. e.g., while the builder, now deceased, may
have agreed not to sue, neither he nor Vans can apply that agreement to others,
such as his step daughter or her child.
The real reasons such suits exist is that most states have unrestricted 'deep pockets'
laws. If a jury should find the builder 99% responsible, and Vans 1% responsible
(maybe because 'Do not use RTV was not printed in red, or 5 point type,
or whatever), Vans would be on the hook for virtually the entire award, not
withstanding the 1% judgement (assuming the builder's estate had no where near
enough assets to pay its share). So the plantiff knows that it just has to
convince most of a jury that Vans was just a tiny bit responsible, and they get
a huge payday from a sympathetic jury.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448296#448296
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Soundproofing the QB fuselage |
| From: | John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com> |
Kelly thanks for bringing it back from transgressing to Thermal from
Acoustic infiltration. You remind me of Dan Newland's posts and his
lecture at OSH on material, cost, effort and resulting gains. Sound and
Thermal are two separate pursuits. Beginning with the source helps the
remediation.
Dan used to work at ORCO down in Emeryville, CA before moving to the NW and
tackling insulation on high end boats with Pegasus.
John Cox
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> The general rules of thumb are that it takes 3 dBA change for most humans
> to detect. 10 dBA is an order of magnitude change, roughly 50% less sound
> energy in the decreasing direction.
> All noise scales are logarithmic.
> If you can get your cabin from 100 dBA to 90 you will think it is a major
> change.
> There are a lot of factors involved. Frequency, vs pulsation. Exhaust vs
> prop noise. Noise through windshield vs noise through firewall vs noise
> through belly or fuselage sides. Noise also decreases fairly rapidly with
> distance. Back seat should be less than front seat. Does your insulation
> tend to reduce vibration of the exterior skins or not.
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Bob Turner
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think Bill's comments are right on. Even a minimal effort seems to
>> improve the thermal insulation. But it takes a major effort (and added
>> weight) to make any real difference in noise. One issue is the way most
>> humans judge sound levels. It takes about a 30% decrease in sound intensity
>> before the average person can detect any change at all!
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448281#448281
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Soundproofing the QB fuselage |
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
I can add a few facts here from 2 RV-10s which got through noise
measurements in Switzerland:
both limited to 2500 RPM for noise reduction!! test flights with close
to MTOW.
#1
Barret IO 540
Hartzell 2 blade C2YR-1BFP/F8068D 2
2 Liese silencers typ RV-10 behind the standard Vetterman
empty 721 kg (1590 pounds (has the pod attach points)) some foam (thin)
is sprayed onto the inside of the fuselage but noise level inside is a
bit higher (1 dB(A)) and subjective a higher vibration level can be felt
On flight testing following parameters were achieved (calculated to SL):
Vy 100 KIAS
RoC 1360 fpm
TO over 15m/45ft 1305 ft/398m
Measured with 79.2 dB(A) on overflights referenced to 300m /984 ft over
the microphone
#2
Mattituck TMX-IO 540
MT 3 blade MTV-12B-193/53
standard Vetterman 6 into 2 no silencer
empty 763.5 kg (1683 pounds all over insulated like Tim did with the
foam rolls). noise level inside is lower (1 dB(A)) especially on the
back seat the plane is very smooth with little vibration.
On flight testing following parameters were achieved (calculated to SL):
Vy 98 KIAS
RoC 1425 fpm
TO over 15m/45ft 1243 ft/379m
Measured with 77.5 dB(A) on overflights referenced to 323m /1060 ft over
the microphone
Remarks, the prop being 4" larger on the 2 blade gets closer to the
critical mach numbers (louder) the 3 blade better in climb gets the #2
an advantage of being roughly 8% higher over the mic.
#2 is with insulation inside more quiet but as the vibration level is
less it is the question what is causing it.
Interesting, the 3 blade wins without the silencers over the 2 blade
with silencer, something I would not have thought before, but could be,
that the insulation on the fuselage bottom does stop reflection waves
from the exhaust gases.
Just data so you need to make up your own mind on that
Cheers Werner
> On 10/27/2015 8:06 AM, Jim Combs wrote:
>> Speaking of sound. Has anyone considered doing anything to muffle the
>> exhaust noise?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Soundproofing the QB fuselage |
| From: | Jim Combs <jiminlexky(at)gmail.com> |
Do you have any idea of the engine RPM / manifold pressure on those flights?
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Werner Schneider wrote:
>
> I can add a few facts here from 2 RV-10s which got through noise
> measurements in Switzerland:
>
> both limited to 2500 RPM for noise reduction!! test flights with close to
> MTOW.
>
> #1
>
> Barret IO 540
> Hartzell 2 blade C2YR-1BFP/F8068D 2
> 2 Liese silencers typ RV-10 behind the standard Vetterman
> empty 721 kg (1590 pounds (has the pod attach points)) some foam (thin) is
> sprayed onto the inside of the fuselage but noise level inside is a bit
> higher (1 dB(A)) and subjective a higher vibration level can be felt
> On flight testing following parameters were achieved (calculated to SL):
> Vy 100 KIAS
> RoC 1360 fpm
> TO over 15m/45ft 1305 ft/398m
> Measured with 79.2 dB(A) on overflights referenced to 300m /984 ft over
> the microphone
>
> #2
>
> Mattituck TMX-IO 540
> MT 3 blade MTV-12B-193/53
> standard Vetterman 6 into 2 no silencer
> empty 763.5 kg (1683 pounds all over insulated like Tim did with the foam
> rolls). noise level inside is lower (1 dB(A)) especially on the back seat
> the plane is very smooth with little vibration.
> On flight testing following parameters were achieved (calculated to SL):
> Vy 98 KIAS
> RoC 1425 fpm
> TO over 15m/45ft 1243 ft/379m
> Measured with 77.5 dB(A) on overflights referenced to 323m /1060 ft over
> the microphone
>
> Remarks, the prop being 4" larger on the 2 blade gets closer to the
> critical mach numbers (louder) the 3 blade better in climb gets the #2
> an advantage of being roughly 8% higher over the mic.
>
> #2 is with insulation inside more quiet but as the vibration level is less
> it is the question what is causing it.
>
> Interesting, the 3 blade wins without the silencers over the 2 blade with
> silencer, something I would not have thought before, but could be, that the
> insulation on the fuselage bottom does stop reflection waves from the
> exhaust gases.
>
> Just data so you need to make up your own mind on that
>
> Cheers Werner
>
>
> On 10/27/2015 8:06 AM, Jim Combs wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of sound. Has anyone considered doing anything to muffle the
>>> exhaust noise?
>>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Soundproofing the QB fuselage |
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
Jim,
engine RPM was 2500 RPM as CS and limited to that as otherwise they
would not pass the noise measurement in this country.
Actually measured levels were
#1 77.2-79.5 dB(A) we had 1019 hPA QNH on that day, RPM varied between
2477 and 2575 (the 79.5 dB(A))
#2 (He might have MP logged) 74.0-76.2 dB(A) we had 1018 hPA QNH on that
day, RPM varied between 2489 and 2500
But then this is corrected according ICAO to represent noise level on
Sea Level in standard atmosphere as well as height, power and RPM are
corrected.
Cheers Werner
On 27.10.2015 18:43, Jim Combs wrote:
> Do you have any idea of the engine RPM / manifold pressure on those flights?
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Werner Schneider > wrote:
>
> >
>
> I can add a few facts here from 2 RV-10s which got through noise
> measurements in Switzerland:
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Soundproofing the QB fuselage |
| From: | "Mike Whisky" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net> |
Jim MP was 27 decreasing to 26.5 climbing from 2300ft to 3000ft with around 98
KIAS.
Although subjective I consider my -10 less noisy compared with the ones I flew
in before. But truth be told there were always month and years between these flights
so they would barely hold up to any proof. Werner had the direct comparison
as he switched planes right away.
Cheers
Michael
--------
RV-10 builder (flying)
#511
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448334#448334
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | PLEASE READ - Matronics Email List Fund Raiser During November! |
Dear Listers,
Each November I hold a PBS-like fund raiser to support the continued operation
and upgrade of the Email List and Fourm Services at Matronics. It's solely through
the Contributions of List members (you) that these Matronics Lists are possible.
You have probably noticed that there are no banner ads or pop-up windows on any of the Matronics Lists or related web sites such as the Forums site http://forums.matronics.com , Wiki site http://wiki.matronics.com , or other related pages such as the List Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search , List Browse http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse , etc. This is because I believe in a List experience that is completely about the sport we all enjoy - namely Airplanes and not about annoying advertisements.
During the month of November I will be sending out List messages every couple of
days reminding everyone that the Fund Raiser is underway. I ask for your patience
and understanding during the Fund Raiser and throughout these regular messages.
The Fund Raiser is only financial support mechanism I have to pay all
of the bills associated with running these lists. YOUR personal Contribution
counts!
This year we have a really HUGE and TERRIFIC line up of free gifts to go along
with the various Contribution levels. In fact, there are over 30 different gifts
to choose from - more than we've ever had before! There's something for everyone,
to be sure. Most all of these gifts have been provided by some of the
vary members and vendors that you'll find on the Matronics Lists and they have
been either donated or provided at substantially discounted rates.
This year, these generous members include:
Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore http://www.buildersbooks.com
Andy is a very generous guy and I encourage you to visit his web site. I would
like publicly to thank Andy for his generous support of the Lists again this
year!!
Please make your List Contribution using any one of three secure methods including
using a credit card, PayPal, or by personal check. All three methods afford
you the opportunity to select one of this year's free gifts with a qualifying
Contribution amount!!
To make your Contribution, please visit the secure web site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
I would like to thank everyone in advance for their generous financial AND moral
support over the years!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
RV-4/RV-6/RV-8 Builder/Rebuilder/Pilot
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
I suspect that finding the right one for you will be
trial and error. There seems to be avast difference
between builders. For instance, mine work fine, and
I now have been using them more than 10 years,
and I have fabric on the inside of my doors.
But, I know people who have fabric who's struts gave
up early or don't work so well. And some people I
know only have paint on their doors. So there is likely
just too much difference in weight and other factors
to make it a one-strut-fits-all.
Also, I do leave my plane in the hangar with the doors
opened, which probably helps prolong the life somewhat
as well.
Tim
On 11/2/2015 12:25 PM, Jae Chang wrote:
>
> I have been researching a better door strut lately without much luck.
> Unfortunately, i dont like either door strut from Vans. The 500N one is
> too weak on compression or when the door is closing. The door will slam
> when about a foot or two open. On the other hand, the 600N does nicely
> to not let the door slam shut, however, it is way way way too powerful
> on the open. It will literally slam the door open, and it looks like it
> will break the hinge bracket out, literally.
>
> I think there must be something better available? Something like the
> 600N strut but with a slower opening velocity OR that will slow itself
> down at full extension. Has anyone else researched this yet? I tried
> testing various cars at the airport with a hatchback, but they were all
> powered or too weak to tell. haha. Anybody else on board with a better
> strut? Unless someone has already done the leg work, i will start
> calling the manufacturers to see what the options are.
>
> Thanks!
> Jae
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
When new, my stock struts and doors (just painted) opened a little on the fast
side. I attached a pull strap, attached to the door just at one end, so I could
hold the strap and let the doors open more slowly.
Now that 5 years have passed, the struts must have lost a little pressure, because
now they're 'just right'. I suppose in another five years they'll be too weak.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448586#448586
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Soundproofing the QB fuselage |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
On 10/25/2015 9:51 AM, whodja wrote:
>
> Temp insulation was also another benefit that I would like.
>
>
The question you may want to get an answer to is, "Is temp insulation
something the '10 needs?". Asking flying builders without insulation
would be a good way to get an answer.
My experience is that the '10 and that big banger up front generate more
than enough heat to get things toasty fast and keep them there in all
situations I've flown in. I'm speaking specifically of the IO540
without any diversion for carb heat.
As has been discussed at length, there are potential heat problems with
the tunnel.
The distribution of heat through the vents is not ideal and could be
improved for back seat passengers I'm told. Any door leaks can create a
cool spot but there is now no reason to have any with the improved
latches and various seal solutions.
Three things discourage this builder from adding insulation; 1) more
work, 2) more weight, 3) the potential for holding moisture, especially
under the floor.
Bill "still beaming from an NC-FL trip in the best plane of all" Watson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Soundproofing the QB fuselage |
Bill mentioned:
Three things discourage this builder from adding insulation; 1) more
work, 2) more weight, 3) the potential for holding moisture, especially
under the floor.
I used Lizardskin, its a sound control (that works) and they have a ceramic
insulator. its a spray on and would not work for a completed plane as it is
messy. Since its sprayed it wont get moisture under anything. I may have
been a little cheap applying it as I dont think I have it as think as the
seller wants, but I do know that when I tapped the aluminum in the plane it
had a much louder sound than after I sprayed the sound control. The ceramic
is meant to adjust the temps in the plane something like 20F, I cant say for
certain if it works but I do know that when its freezing outside and I touch
the sides I dont feel it as being so cold.
Even with the extra 18Lbs of sound (13lbs) and ceramic (5Lbs) the plane is
loud. I cant imagine what my plane would be like without the sound control.
Concerning the tunnel heat- dont have it! I sprayed the ceramic on the
(in)sides and have a stainless steel vent that pretty much blocks out most
heat from ever getting into the tunnel.
Heat wise- I used barely a pull at 17F OAT of the heat in the front and same
for the back, otherwise there is no heat entering the plane from any vents.
Would I do the sound and ceramic like I did again. I would, takes minimal
space spraying versus the mats, it does cut back the aluminum noise and does
add a level of temperature protection from outside. I might not be so cheap
next time and buy an extra bucket of each to get a little more sound control
and heat, but its fine the way it is now too!
In the end the best sound control is a pair of expensive headsets- the 1K
ones. I have worn less expensive ones and they just didnt block the noise
as well as the expensive ones, and they take up even less space than the 1/4
wide sound control I sprayed.
Pascal
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Watson
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Soundproofing the QB fuselage
On 10/25/2015 9:51 AM, whodja wrote:
>
> Temp insulation was also another benefit that I would like.
>
>
The question you may want to get an answer to is, "Is temp insulation
something the '10 needs?". Asking flying builders without insulation
would be a good way to get an answer.
My experience is that the '10 and that big banger up front generate more
than enough heat to get things toasty fast and keep them there in all
situations I've flown in. I'm speaking specifically of the IO540
without any diversion for carb heat.
As has been discussed at length, there are potential heat problems with
the tunnel.
The distribution of heat through the vents is not ideal and could be
improved for back seat passengers I'm told. Any door leaks can create a
cool spot but there is now no reason to have any with the improved
latches and various seal solutions.
Three things discourage this builder from adding insulation; 1) more
work, 2) more weight, 3) the potential for holding moisture, especially
under the floor.
Bill "still beaming from an NC-FL trip in the best plane of all" Watson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
I agree on the straps. Having just flown around the tropics a bit, I
found that the strap combined with fresh struts allow me to engine start
and taxi with 1 or both doors fully open. The straps allow them to be
pulled down while belted in. The also allow an arm to be hooked in the
strap so the door can be held close but with the prop blast keeping a 3
- 6 inch gap. All very useful here in NC let alone south FL.
Bill "flying with fresh struts and new latches" Watson
On 11/2/2015 5:07 PM, Don McDonald wrote:
> Strap is nice to let the door up, and pull the door down..(while
> firmly sitting in the seat).. not sure I would like going back to not
> having the strap.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> **
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
Be careful. The door hinges are fragile. I have a rule that if the
engine is running or if the plane is unattended and not in a hangar, the
doors are shut and locked.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Watson
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
I agree on the straps. Having just flown around the tropics a bit, I
found that the strap combined with fresh struts allow me to engine start
and taxi with 1 or both doors fully open. The straps allow them to be
pulled down while belted in. The also allow an arm to be hooked in the
strap so the door can be held close but with the prop blast keeping a 3
- 6 inch gap. All very useful here in NC let alone south FL.
Bill "flying with fresh struts and new latches" Watson
On 11/2/2015 5:07 PM, Don McDonald wrote:
Strap is nice to let the door up, and pull the door down..(while firmly
sitting in the seat).. not sure I would like going back to not having
the strap.
_____
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
I agree completely.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Carl Froehlich wr
ote:
>
> Be careful. The door hinges are fragile. I have a rule that if the engin
e is running or if the plane is unattended and not in a hangar, the doors ar
e shut and locked.
>
> Carl
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Watson
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 12:26 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
>
> I agree on the straps. Having just flown around the tropics a bit, I foun
d that the strap combined with fresh struts allow me to engine start and tax
i with 1 or both doors fully open. The straps allow them to be pulled down w
hile belted in. The also allow an arm to be hooked in the strap so the door
can be held close but with the prop blast keeping a 3 - 6 inch gap. All ve
ry useful here in NC let alone south FL.
>
> Bill "flying with fresh struts and new latches" Watson
>
> On 11/2/2015 5:07 PM, Don McDonald wrote:
> Strap is nice to let the door up, and pull the door down..(while firmly si
tting in the seat).. not sure I would like going back to not having the stra
p.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
I realize this is not a flying situation, but the doors were known for
flying off their hinges in the air when the rear wasn=99t
completely engaging. My rule is I check the doors are shut and secured
before starting and they don=99t open again until the engine is
shut off. The vents provide plenty of air for me in So Cal during the
middle of Summer while the engine is running.
Pascal
From: Carl Froehlich
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 3:07 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
Be careful. The door hinges are fragile. I have a rule that if the
engine is running or if the plane is unattended and not in a hangar, the
doors are shut and locked.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Watson
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
I agree on the straps. Having just flown around the tropics a bit, I
found that the strap combined with fresh struts allow me to engine start
and taxi with 1 or both doors fully open. The straps allow them to be
pulled down while belted in. The also allow an arm to be hooked in the
strap so the door can be held close but with the prop blast keeping a 3
- 6 inch gap. All very useful here in NC let alone south FL.
Bill "flying with fresh struts and new latches" Watson
On 11/2/2015 5:07 PM, Don McDonald wrote:
Strap is nice to let the door up, and pull the door down..(while
firmly sitting in the seat).. not sure I would like going back to not
having the strap.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Please Make A Contribution To Support Your Lists |
Dear Listers,
There is no advertising income to support the Matronics Email Lists and Forums.
The operation is supported 100% by your personal Contributions during the November
Fund Raiser.
Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade
of these services. You can pick up a really nice gift for making your Contribution
too!
You may use a Credit Card or Paypal at the Matronics Contribution Site here:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or, you can send a personal check to the following address:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore, CA 94550
Thank you in advance for your generous support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
That's a good rule and one worth following.
I just can't follow it. It's almost always too hot to even think about
taxiing around with the doors shut in the NC hot seasons. In KEYW FL
with humidity, heat and sun, it can be dangerous even with1500 RPMs
blowing vent air directly on the face and body.
I accept that the hinges may be fragile but I don't see any sign of them
being fragile relative to be open when taxiing. It didn't feel right
when I first tried it with the minor flopping around and stuff but I've
gotten use to it and haven't found any cracks yet.
Regarding the 'flying off the hinges in flight' issue. My original
build includes aftermarket pin blocks along with the full Vans
electrical check system. Along with all that, this pilot visually
checks front and rear door seating before every takeoff. But that's
still short of foolproof enough for a version 1 door latch so I just
added the Plane Around 90 degree retrofit kit. I already had a flush
latch and door lock.
The retrofit kit is wonderful when compared to the version 1 Vans latch
(w/o later mod). Previously I had trouble using the flush latches to
fully close and lock the doors. I never let a passenger operate the
door latch without my hands on it. Now everything works perfectly and
easily. And though I will continue to visually check the door seating
on each takeoff, I haven't been able to close the door and latch without
engaging both pins no matter how I or my passenger try to screw it up.
Great kit that! Now I just have to refinish the interior of the door.
On 11/3/2015 7:26 PM, Pascal wrote:
> I realize this is not a flying situation, but the doors were known for
> flying off their hinges in the air when the rear wasnt completely
> engaging. My rule is I check the doors are shut and secured before
> starting and they dont open again until the engine is shut off. The
> vents provide plenty of air for me in So Cal during the middle of
> Summer while the engine is running.
> Pascal
> *From:* Carl Froehlich
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2015 3:07 PM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
>
> Be careful. The door hinges are fragile. I have a rule that if the
> engine is running or if the plane is unattended and not in a hangar,
> the doors are shut and locked.
>
> Carl
>
> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Watson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2015 12:26 PM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
>
> I agree on the straps. Having just flown around the tropics a bit, I
> found that the strap combined with fresh struts allow me to engine
> start and taxi with 1 or both doors fully open. The straps allow them
> to be pulled down while belted in. The also allow an arm to be hooked
> in the strap so the door can be held close but with the prop blast
> keeping a 3 - 6 inch gap. All very useful here in NC let alone south FL.
>
> Bill "flying with fresh struts and new latches" Watson
>
> On 11/2/2015 5:07 PM, Don McDonald wrote:
>
> Strap is nice to let the door up, and pull the door down..(while
> firmly sitting in the seat).. not sure I would like going back to
> not having the strap.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
Bill;
I was speaking more from my perspective of having 2 young daughters that
I have at least once been distracted enough to miss a Checklist item,
and specifically when hot and everyone tends to want to rush to get up
in the air. I simply need both hands on mixture and flightstick and
radios to not want to worry about the doors and missing any items on the
Checklist. No way I would trust anyone to hold the door open while
taxiing,
Although we both have mild winters where we live, maybe a good project
for you this
winter-http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=73537
077?KEYS=pascal?LISTNAME=RV10?HITNUMBER=785?SERIAL=0813279166XXX?
SHOWBUTTONS=YES
Just need scrap (maybe time for a new cooler ) I happen to have an old
oil cooler that came with my engine so most parts were available.
Only issue with this is getting ice, but most FBO=99s I stop at
tend to have ice, don=99t need much just enough to blow colder air
than the OAT.
Pascal
From: Bill Watson
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
That's a good rule and one worth following.
I just can't follow it. It's almost always too hot to even think about
taxiing around with the doors shut in the NC hot seasons. In KEYW FL
with humidity, heat and sun, it can be dangerous even with1500 RPMs
blowing vent air directly on the face and body.
I accept that the hinges may be fragile but I don't see any sign of them
being fragile relative to be open when taxiing. It didn't feel right
when I first tried it with the minor flopping around and stuff but I've
gotten use to it and haven't found any cracks yet.
Regarding the 'flying off the hinges in flight' issue. My original
build includes aftermarket pin blocks along with the full Vans
electrical check system. Along with all that, this pilot visually
checks front and rear door seating before every takeoff. But that's
still short of foolproof enough for a version 1 door latch so I just
added the Plane Around 90 degree retrofit kit. I already had a flush
latch and door lock.
The retrofit kit is wonderful when compared to the version 1 Vans latch
(w/o later mod). Previously I had trouble using the flush latches to
fully close and lock the doors. I never let a passenger operate the
door latch without my hands on it. Now everything works perfectly and
easily. And though I will continue to visually check the door seating
on each takeoff, I haven't been able to close the door and latch without
engaging both pins no matter how I or my passenger try to screw it up.
Great kit that! Now I just have to refinish the interior of the door.
On 11/3/2015 7:26 PM, Pascal wrote:
I realize this is not a flying situation, but the doors were known for
flying off their hinges in the air when the rear wasn=99t
completely engaging. My rule is I check the doors are shut and secured
before starting and they don=99t open again until the engine is
shut off. The vents provide plenty of air for me in So Cal during the
middle of Summer while the engine is running.
Pascal
From: Carl Froehlich
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 3:07 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
Be careful. The door hinges are fragile. I have a rule that if the
engine is running or if the plane is unattended and not in a hangar, the
doors are shut and locked.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Watson
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 12:26 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
I agree on the straps. Having just flown around the tropics a bit, I
found that the strap combined with fresh struts allow me to engine start
and taxi with 1 or both doors fully open. The straps allow them to be
pulled down while belted in. The also allow an arm to be hooked in the
strap so the door can be held close but with the prop blast keeping a 3
- 6 inch gap. All very useful here in NC let alone south FL.
Bill "flying with fresh struts and new latches" Watson
On 11/2/2015 5:07 PM, Don McDonald wrote:
Strap is nice to let the door up, and pull the door down..(while
firmly sitting in the seat).. not sure I would like going back to not
having the strap.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Date: 11/03/15
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <lewgall(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
Hey Bill,
I think I have one of these coolers/fans/pump, etc. in the shop still.
If you=99re interested, I=99ll go look. I=99m in
Greenville, SC ... not that far for a =9310, come see us!
Later, =93 Lew
From: Pascal
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
Bill;
I was speaking more from my perspective of having 2 young daughters that
I have at least once been distracted enough to miss a Checklist item,
and specifically when hot and everyone tends to want to rush to get up
in the air. I simply need both hands on mixture and flightstick and
radios to not want to worry about the doors and missing any items on the
Checklist. No way I would trust anyone to hold the door open while
taxiing,
Although we both have mild winters where we live, maybe a good project
for you this
winter-http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=73537
077?KEYS=pascal?LISTNAME=RV10?HITNUMBER=785?SERIAL=0813279166XXX?
SHOWBUTTONS=YES
Just need scrap (maybe time for a new cooler ) I happen to have an old
oil cooler that came with my engine so most parts were available.
Only issue with this is getting ice, but most FBO=99s I stop at
tend to have ice, don=99t need much just enough to blow colder air
than the OAT.
Pascal
From: Bill Watson
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
That's a good rule and one worth following.
I just can't follow it. It's almost always too hot to even think about
taxiing around with the doors shut in the NC hot seasons. In KEYW FL
with humidity, heat and sun, it can be dangerous even with1500 RPMs
blowing vent air directly on the face and body.
I accept that the hinges may be fragile but I don't see any sign of them
being fragile relative to be open when taxiing. It didn't feel right
when I first tried it with the minor flopping around and stuff but I've
gotten use to it and haven't found any cracks yet.
Regarding the 'flying off the hinges in flight' issue. My original
build includes aftermarket pin blocks along with the full Vans
electrical check system. Along with all that, this pilot visually
checks front and rear door seating before every takeoff. But that's
still short of foolproof enough for a version 1 door latch so I just
added the Plane Around 90 degree retrofit kit. I already had a flush
latch and door lock.
The retrofit kit is wonderful when compared to the version 1 Vans latch
(w/o later mod). Previously I had trouble using the flush latches to
fully close and lock the doors. I never let a passenger operate the
door latch without my hands on it. Now everything works perfectly and
easily. And though I will continue to visually check the door seating
on each takeoff, I haven't been able to close the door and latch without
engaging both pins no matter how I or my passenger try to screw it up.
Great kit that! Now I just have to refinish the interior of the door.
On 11/3/2015 7:26 PM, Pascal wrote:
I realize this is not a flying situation, but the doors were known for
flying off their hinges in the air when the rear wasn=99t
completely engaging. My rule is I check the doors are shut and secured
before starting and they don=99t open again until the engine is
shut off. The vents provide plenty of air for me in So Cal during the
middle of Summer while the engine is running.
Pascal
From: Carl Froehlich
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 3:07 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
Be careful. The door hinges are fragile. I have a rule that if the
engine is running or if the plane is unattended and not in a hangar, the
doors are shut and locked.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Watson
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 12:26 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
I agree on the straps. Having just flown around the tropics a bit, I
found that the strap combined with fresh struts allow me to engine start
and taxi with 1 or both doors fully open. The straps allow them to be
pulled down while belted in. The also allow an arm to be hooked in the
strap so the door can be held close but with the prop blast keeping a 3
- 6 inch gap. All very useful here in NC let alone south FL.
Bill "flying with fresh struts and new latches" Watson
On 11/2/2015 5:07 PM, Don McDonald wrote:
Strap is nice to let the door up, and pull the door down..(while
firmly sitting in the seat).. not sure I would like going back to not
having the strap.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Date: 11/03/15
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
I again urge caution. While you may have successfully tested taxi with
the doors open, the =9Cother airplane=9D prop blast might be
waiting to bite. Same for leaving the doors open or closed but not
locked on the ramp when the plane is unattended.
Just did a run out west this summer to Albuquerque and Phoenix. While
warm, once the engine was started there was adequate cockpit ventilation
with the doors shut and locked to make things tolerable.
Carl (been there =93 done that and the hinges snapped like dry
twigs)
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Watson
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
That's a good rule and one worth following.
I just can't follow it. It's almost always too hot to even think about
taxiing around with the doors shut in the NC hot seasons. In KEYW FL
with humidity, heat and sun, it can be dangerous even with1500 RPMs
blowing vent air directly on the face and body.
I accept that the hinges may be fragile but I don't see any sign of them
being fragile relative to be open when taxiing. It didn't feel right
when I first tried it with the minor flopping around and stuff but I've
gotten use to it and haven't found any cracks yet.
Regarding the 'flying off the hinges in flight' issue. My original
build includes aftermarket pin blocks along with the full Vans
electrical check system. Along with all that, this pilot visually
checks front and rear door seating before every takeoff. But that's
still short of foolproof enough for a version 1 door latch so I just
added the Plane Around 90 degree retrofit kit. I already had a flush
latch and door lock.
The retrofit kit is wonderful when compared to the version 1 Vans latch
(w/o later mod). Previously I had trouble using the flush latches to
fully close and lock the doors. I never let a passenger operate the
door latch without my hands on it. Now everything works perfectly and
easily. And though I will continue to visually check the door seating
on each takeoff, I haven't been able to close the door and latch without
engaging both pins no matter how I or my passenger try to screw it up.
Great kit that! Now I just have to refinish the interior of the door.
On 11/3/2015 7:26 PM, Pascal wrote:
I realize this is not a flying situation, but the doors were known for
flying off their hinges in the air when the rear wasn=99t
completely engaging. My rule is I check the doors are shut and secured
before starting and they don=99t open again until the engine is
shut off. The vents provide plenty of air for me in So Cal during the
middle of Summer while the engine is running.
Pascal
From: Carl Froehlich <mailto:carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 3:07 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
Be careful. The door hinges are fragile. I have a rule that if the
engine is running or if the plane is unattended and not in a hangar, the
doors are shut and locked.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Watson
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
I agree on the straps. Having just flown around the tropics a bit, I
found that the strap combined with fresh struts allow me to engine start
and taxi with 1 or both doors fully open. The straps allow them to be
pulled down while belted in. The also allow an arm to be hooked in the
strap so the door can be held close but with the prop blast keeping a 3
- 6 inch gap. All very useful here in NC let alone south FL.
Bill "flying with fresh struts and new latches" Watson
On 11/2/2015 5:07 PM, Don McDonald wrote:
Strap is nice to let the door up, and pull the door down..(while firmly
sitting in the seat).. not sure I would like going back to not having
the strap.
_____
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Date: 11/03/15
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
I've been following this thread with much interest, and have some
questions ....
Is the failure of the hinges caused by the door in motion coming against
the hinge travel .... such as caused by a gust of wind or prop blast on
an unrestrained door?
How about a door partially open and restrained?
I envision the strap on my door .... used to close it while seated ....
with snaps ... think boat tarps ... strategically placed so that it
serves as a safety to restrain the door in case of an opening in flight
and also to hold the door partially open for ventilation.
I have the replacement 600N gas struts.
Linn .... painting tail feathers, pants and fairings
On 11/4/2015 2:31 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote:
>
> I again urge caution. While you may have successfully tested taxi
> with the doors open, the other airplane prop blast might be waiting
> to bite. Same for leaving the doors open or closed but not locked on
> the ramp when the plane is unattended.
>
> Just did a run out west this summer to Albuquerque and Phoenix. While
> warm, once the engine was started there was adequate cockpit
> ventilation with the doors shut and locked to make things tolerable.
>
> Carl (been there done that and the hinges snapped like dry twigs)
>
> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Watson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 04, 2015 10:49 AM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
>
> That's a good rule and one worth following.
>
> I just can't follow it. It's almost always too hot to even think
> about taxiing around with the doors shut in the NC hot seasons. In
> KEYW FL with humidity, heat and sun, it can be dangerous even with1500
> RPMs blowing vent air directly on the face and body.
>
> I accept that the hinges may be fragile but I don't see any sign of
> them being fragile relative to be open when taxiing. It didn't feel
> right when I first tried it with the minor flopping around and stuff
> but I've gotten use to it and haven't found any cracks yet.
>
> Regarding the 'flying off the hinges in flight' issue. My original
> build includes aftermarket pin blocks along with the full Vans
> electrical check system. Along with all that, this pilot visually
> checks front and rear door seating before every takeoff. But that's
> still short of foolproof enough for a version 1 door latch so I just
> added the Plane Around 90 degree retrofit kit. I already had a flush
> latch and door lock.
>
> The retrofit kit is wonderful when compared to the version 1 Vans
> latch (w/o later mod). Previously I had trouble using the flush
> latches to fully close and lock the doors. I never let a passenger
> operate the door latch without my hands on it. Now everything works
> perfectly and easily. And though I will continue to visually check the
> door seating on each takeoff, I haven't been able to close the door
> and latch without engaging both pins no matter how I or my passenger
> try to screw it up. Great kit that! Now I just have to refinish the
> interior of the door.
>
> On 11/3/2015 7:26 PM, Pascal wrote:
>
> I realize this is not a flying situation, but the doors were known
> for flying off their hinges in the air when the rear wasnt
> completely engaging. My rule is I check the doors are shut and
> secured before starting and they dont open again until the engine
> is shut off. The vents provide plenty of air for me in So Cal
> during the middle of Summer while the engine is running.
>
> Pascal
>
> *From:*Carl Froehlich
>
> *Sent:*Tuesday, November 03, 2015 3:07 PM
>
> *To:*rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>
> *Subject:*RE: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
>
> Be careful. The door hinges are fragile. I have a rule that if
> the engine is running or if the plane is unattended and not in a
> hangar, the doors are shut and locked.
>
> Carl
>
> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill
> Watson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2015 12:26 PM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
>
> I agree on the straps. Having just flown around the tropics a
> bit, I found that the strap combined with fresh struts allow me to
> engine start and taxi with 1 or both doors fully open. The straps
> allow them to be pulled down while belted in. The also allow an
> arm to be hooked in the strap so the door can be held close but
> with the prop blast keeping a 3 - 6 inch gap. All very useful
> here in NC let alone south FL.
>
> Bill "flying with fresh struts and new latches" Watson
>
> On 11/2/2015 5:07 PM, Don McDonald wrote:
>
> Strap is nice to let the door up, and pull the door
> down..(while firmly sitting in the seat).. not sure I would
> like going back to not having the strap.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Date: 11/03/15
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Hey Lew!
I keep forgetting you are in in Greenville... we fly in to KGMU 1 or 2
times a year to see friends. Next time I'll try to look you up.
Thinking back to our last trips though, I'm at a loss as to where I
would put such a cooler given either the full seats or/or full cargo
load we seem to always be hauling around. I'm really glad I never
started that RV7 project.
Bill "wondering what you are building now" Watson
On 11/4/2015 11:46 AM, lewgall(at)charter.net wrote:
> Hey Bill,
> I think I have one of these coolers/fans/pump, etc. in the shop
> still. If youre interested, Ill go look. Im in Greenville, SC ...
> not that far for a 10, come see us!
> Later, Lew
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
LOL! yes Bill I know that feeling all too well with three women in the
plane. never understood why they need suitcases for a weekend trip?
From: Bill Watson
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
Hey Lew!
I keep forgetting you are in in Greenville... we fly in to KGMU 1 or 2
times a year to see friends. Next time I'll try to look you up.
Thinking back to our last trips though, I'm at a loss as to where I
would put such a cooler given either the full seats or/or full cargo
load we seem to always be hauling around. I'm really glad I never
started that RV7 project.
Bill "wondering what you are building now" Watson
On 11/4/2015 11:46 AM, lewgall(at)charter.net wrote:
Hey Bill,
I think I have one of these coolers/fans/pump, etc. in the shop still.
If you=99re interested, I=99ll go look. I=99m in
Greenville, SC ... not that far for a =9310, come see us!
Later, =93 Lew
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Well Carl, I'm going to really give your points some serious consideration.
I've been guilty as recently as last week of leaving the doors open on a
public ramp just so things weren't so hot after a pit stop. That's just
plain stupid in retrospect.
Before re-fitting my door latches, I often left a door closed but
unlatched sitting on the ramp. That practice will stop now.
But I must have really poor cockpit ventilation or something. I've done
Albuquerque and Phoenix in season (not summer) and well, I just can't
imagine 5 minutes taxiing around with it all sealed up. Typically it
would be with one or both doors open about 6" with straps looped around
our arms. Now with fresh struts I found that just keeping them wide
open worked well on a calm day. They weren't flopping around like they
did with the weaker struts and the ventilation was just wonderful... but
prop/jet blast could be a risk as would strong winds or a thermal.
I'll always remember my first landing in Scottsdale. A windshield
reflective cover was not part of my equipment yet. After a couple of
hours in the sun a number of interior items fell off, delaminated or
otherwise self destructed in the solar heat blast. Just part of the
extended test period....
Bill "thinking a snapped off door would ruin my year" Watson
On 11/4/2015 2:31 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote:
>
> I again urge caution. While you may have successfully tested taxi
> with the doors open, the other airplane prop blast might be waiting
> to bite. Same for leaving the doors open or closed but not locked on
> the ramp when the plane is unattended.
>
> Just did a run out west this summer to Albuquerque and Phoenix. While
> warm, once the engine was started there was adequate cockpit
> ventilation with the doors shut and locked to make things tolerable.
>
> Carl (been there done that and the hinges snapped like dry twigs)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Bill,
You just need to get going on the RV-10 XL upgrade. Say a 1 ft plug at
the empennage attach to the cabin for bigger baggage compartment. The
extra leverage would allow for upgrading the engine to 300 hp versions
of the engine. Then get someone to figure what improvements were needed
for the tail feathers to allow upping the Vne, so that a turbo could be
mounted, allowing keeping 75% up to the flight levels with 200kt cruise
without burning a barrel of 100LL/hour. Oh and reverse the main gear,
and mount a tail wheel, while removing the nose gear, to reduce drag. It
would be just a bit faster than your old Maule.
On 11/4/2015 7:15 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
> Hey Lew!
>
> I keep forgetting you are in in Greenville... we fly in to KGMU 1 or 2
> times a year to see friends. Next time I'll try to look you up.
>
> Thinking back to our last trips though, I'm at a loss as to where I
> would put such a cooler given either the full seats or/or full cargo
> load we seem to always be hauling around. I'm really glad I never
> started that RV7 project.
>
> Bill "wondering what you are building now" Watson
>
> On 11/4/2015 11:46 AM, lewgall(at)charter.net wrote:
>> Hey Bill,
>> I think I have one of these coolers/fans/pump, etc. in the shop
>> still. If youre interested, Ill go look. Im in Greenville, SC
>> ... not that far for a 10, come see us!
>> Later, Lew
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
Lew,
I=99m heading down to SPA tomorrow to take Don Rivera=99s
class. I=99m not sure how much free time I=99ll have after
class.
bob
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors
Bill,
You just need to get going on the RV-10 XL upgrade. Say a 1 ft plug at
the empennage attach to the cabin for bigger baggage compartment. The
extra leverage would allow for upgrading the engine to 300 hp versions
of the engine. Then get someone to figure what improvements were needed
for the tail feathers to allow upping the Vne, so that a turbo could be
mounted, allowing keeping 75% up to the flight levels with 200kt cruise
without burning a barrel of 100LL/hour. Oh and reverse the main gear,
and mount a tail wheel, while removing the nose gear, to reduce drag. It
would be just a bit faster than your old Maule.
On 11/4/2015 7:15 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
Hey Lew!
I keep forgetting you are in in Greenville... we fly in to KGMU 1 or 2
times a year to see friends. Next time I'll try to look you up.
Thinking back to our last trips though, I'm at a loss as to where I
would put such a cooler given either the full seats or/or full cargo
load we seem to always be hauling around. I'm really glad I never
started that RV7 project.
Bill "wondering what you are building now" Watson
On 11/4/2015 11:46 AM, lewgall(at)charter.net
wrote:
Hey Bill,
I think I have one of these coolers/fans/pump, etc. in the shop still.
If you=99re interested, I=99ll go look. I=99m in
Greenville, SC ... not that far for a =9310, come see us!
Later, =93 Lew
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Better Gas Strut for Doors |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Ha! A RV10 XL, I like it. But you know, the current design flies so
darn well I'd settle for an enormously bigger cargo door like the Maule.
...But that would probably require adding some welded tube steel
structure, the only thing the '10 is missing.
On 11/4/2015 9:33 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> Bill,
> You just need to get going on the RV-10 XL upgrade. Say a 1 ft plug at
> the empennage attach to the cabin for bigger baggage compartment. The
> extra leverage would allow for upgrading the engine to 300 hp versions
> of the engine. Then get someone to figure what improvements were
> needed for the tail feathers to allow upping the Vne, so that a turbo
> could be mounted, allowing keeping 75% up to the flight levels with
> 200kt cruise without burning a barrel of 100LL/hour. Oh and reverse
> the main gear, and mount a tail wheel, while removing the nose gear,
> to reduce drag. It would be just a bit faster than your old Maule.
>
> On 11/4/2015 7:15 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>> Hey Lew!
>>
>> I keep forgetting you are in in Greenville... we fly in to KGMU 1 or
>> 2 times a year to see friends. Next time I'll try to look you up.
>>
>> Thinking back to our last trips though, I'm at a loss as to where I
>> would put such a cooler given either the full seats or/or full cargo
>> load we seem to always be hauling around. I'm really glad I never
>> started that RV7 project.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bigger baggage door and other ramblings |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
Well, it took some years for the C170/C180 airframe to gain baggage doors.
Got to practice loading over the back seats. Now if someone came up with a
better hinge/attach bracket for the back seats, which would allow a quick
removal of one or both back seats you could accomplish the same thing.
However, I have a tandem bike that can be packed in two full size
suitcases, which would be nice, if that left room for the normal SO baggage
and my one roll aboard. There is the one belly pod option, which eliminates
the baggage door issue.
My thinking was that moving the tailcone back would allow a heavier engine
up front, whether Lyc or Cont (CMI).
I note this month's Sport Aviation features a Velocity XL with IO-550N
claiming 185kts at 14,500 burning 10.5 gph. That would be a real serious
reduction in drag over the RV-10. Both have fixed gear. Maybe we need a
canard out front to reduce the drag of our conventional empennage(like the
Petersen STC adds to C182 airframe). Of course that Velocity will never
handle the rougher and shorter runways a 10 tolerates. Where is John Cox to
help sort out all these potential modifications?
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
> Ha! A RV10 XL, I like it. But you know, the current design flies so darn
> well I'd settle for an enormously bigger cargo door like the Maule.
>
> ...But that would probably require adding some welded tube steel
> structure, the only thing the '10 is missing.
>
> On 11/4/2015 9:33 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Bill,
> You just need to get going on the RV-10 XL upgrade. Say a 1 ft plug at the
> empennage attach to the cabin for bigger baggage compartment. The extra
> leverage would allow for upgrading the engine to 300 hp versions of the
> engine. Then get someone to figure what improvements were needed for the
> tail feathers to allow upping the Vne, so that a turbo could be mounted,
> allowing keeping 75% up to the flight levels with 200kt cruise without
> burning a barrel of 100LL/hour. Oh and reverse the main gear, and mount a
> tail wheel, while removing the nose gear, to reduce drag. It would be just
> a bit faster than your old Maule.
>
> On 11/4/2015 7:15 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>
> Hey Lew!
>
> I keep forgetting you are in in Greenville... we fly in to KGMU 1 or 2
> times a year to see friends. Next time I'll try to look you up.
>
> Thinking back to our last trips though, I'm at a loss as to where I would
> put such a cooler given either the full seats or/or full cargo load we seem
> to always be hauling around. I'm really glad I never started that RV7
> project.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Airflow Performance - FAB (Clearance) |
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
I might be crazy (wouldn't be the 1st time I was accused of it) but I
recall reading a service bulletin on the Air Flow Performance website
discussing cracks in the top plate of the FAB. One of their suggestions
was to increase the gap size (1 inch seems to ring a bell?) between the
back of the snorkel and the front of the FAB.
Now that I'm trimming the snorkel, I went back to find that document and I
can't find it.
1) Do any of you have that AFP document?
2) What's the gap size most of you have used, how many hours, any cracks
found?
Thanks,
Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bigger baggage door and other ramblings |
| From: | "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com> |
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> Now if someone came up with a better hinge/attach bracket for the back seats,
which would allow a quick removal of one or both back seats you could accomplish
the same thing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
[/quote]
[/quote][/quote]
My back seats come out in about 30 seconds each. Much better than my old Bonanza
that required about a half day and a customized box end wrench to get the back
seats out! :x
--------
David Maib
RV-10 #40559
New Smyrna Beach, FL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448776#448776
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Coming Soon - The List of Contributors - Please Make A Contribution |
Today!
Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone
that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way
of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation
for the Lists.
Please take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors
(LOC)! As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems
at least as valuable a building / entertainment tool as your typical magazine
subscription!
Assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate the
Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your
Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps
these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about
how the Lists have helped you!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bigger baggage door and other ramblings |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Having just done a couple of removal/re-installation cycles, my
experience is the same - 30 secs. Much to my surprise and delight!
I've grown to like hinge pin connections.
On 11/5/2015 11:23 AM, dmaib(at)me.com wrote:
>
>
> Kelly McMullen wrote:
>> Now if someone came up with a better hinge/attach bracket for the back seats,
which would allow a quick removal of one or both back seats you could accomplish
the same thing.
>>
>>
>> My back seats come out in about 30 seconds each. Much better than my old Bonanza
that required about a half day and a customized box end wrench to get the
back seats out! :x
>>
>> --------
>> David Maib
>> RV-10 #40559
>> New Smyrna Beach, FL
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Suggested RV10 Design Improvements |
| From: | "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Hmmmm
I know the -10 is a great machine. But is it really too much to ask for better STOL performance. Something like this perhaps: http://i.imgur.com/EKvEAOz.gifv
Cheers
Les
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448901#448901
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Suggested RV10 Design Improvements |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
Les,
I want one of those, that will fly on RV-10 fuel budget, and can be
maintained on RV-10 budget.
Whatever happened to your unique steam powered STOL Cherokee?
Kelly
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 6:34 AM, kearney wrote:
>
> Hmmmm
>
> I know the -10 is a great machine. But is it really too much to ask for
> better STOL performance. Something like this perhaps:
> http://i.imgur.com/EKvEAOz.gifv
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448901#448901
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Suggested RV10 Design Improvements |
| From: | "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Hi Kelley
As agreed with She Who Must Be Obeyed, the only known flying example of the coal
fired steam powered Cherokee was sold when my -10 took to the air.
For those who are interested, here is a poor pix of what it looked like.
Cheers
Les
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448905#448905
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/c_gekf_161.gif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... |
Dear Listers,
Just a reminder that November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution
today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these great
List services!! Pick up a really nice free gift with your qualifying Contribution
too!
The Contribution Site is fast and easy:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94551-0347
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Sealant for top skin |
| From: | "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com> |
Getting ready to put on the last top skin overlapping the cabin top. I had a plan
to begin riveting from the center out to the edges. Now realizing I need
a sealant at the leading edge brings in a time factor. Was going to use some
of the leftover Lord adhesive but that starts to set up in 30-45 minutes if I
remember right. Because this will be a two man rivet crew I'm not sure how long
it will take with all the "special" rivets to buck surrounding miscellaneous
brackets, hardware, overhead console mounts, etc. I don't have any proseal
left over but wondered what other sealants were suited for that forward overlap
seam? Rtv, silicone may not be good for under paint?
--------
Dave Ford
RV6 for sale
RV10 building
Cadillac, MI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448996#448996
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Clifford <davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sealant for top skin |
I used Pro-Seal on my build. Stay away from anything with silicone. I would buy
some more Pro-Seal and keep any extra in the shop. It comes in handy for a lot
of things and when My can runs out, I plan on replacing it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2015 8:04:51 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Sealant for top skin
Getting ready to put on the last top skin overlapping the cabin top. I had a plan
to begin riveting from the center out to the edges. Now realizing I need a
sealant at the leading edge brings in a time factor. Was going to use some of
the leftover Lord adhesive but that starts to set up in 30-45 minutes if I remember
right. Because this will be a two man rivet crew I'm not sure how long it
will take with all the "special" rivets to buck surrounding miscellaneous brackets,
hardware, overhead console mounts, etc. I don't have any proseal left
over but wondered what other sealants were suited for that forward overlap seam?
Rtv, silicone may not be good for under paint?
--------
Dave Ford
RV6 for sale
RV10 building
Cadillac, MI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=448996#448996
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | A List Contribution - It's Your Personal Squelch Button... |
There is an automatic "squelch button" of sorts for the Fund Raiser messages.
Here's how it works... As soon as a List member makes a Contribution through
the Matronics Fund Raiser web site, their email address is automatically added
to this year's Contributor List and they instantly cease to receive further Fund
Raiser messages for the rest of the month! Its just that simple! :-)
I really do appreciate each and every one of your individual Contributions to support
the Lists. It is your support that enables me to upgrade the hardware
and software that are required to run a List Site such as this one. It also goes
to pay for the commercial-grade Internet connection and to pay the huge electric
bill to keep the computer gear running and the air conditioner powered
on. I run all of the Matronics Email List and Forums sites here locally which
allows me to control and monitor every aspect of the system for the utmost in
reliably and performance. Your personal Contribution matters because, when combined
with other Listers such as yourself, it pays the bills to keep this site
up and running. I accept exactly ZERO advertising dollars for the Matronics
Lists sites. I can't stand the pop-up ads and all other commercials that are
so prevalent on the Internet these days and I particularly don't want to have
it on my Email List sites.
If you appreciate the ad-free, grass-roots, down-home feel of the Matronics Email
Lists, please make a Contribution to keep it that way!!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or, you can send a personal check to the following address:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore, CA 94550
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
[Note that there are certain circumstances where you might still see a Contribution
related message. For example, if someone replies to one of the messages,
when using the List Browse feature, or when accessing List message via the Forum.
The system keys on the given email address and since most of these are anonymous
public access methods, there is no simple way to filter them.]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [PLEASE READ] Why I Have A Fund Raiser... |
Since the beginning, the Matronics List and Forum experience has been free from
advertising. I have been approached by fair number of vendors wanting to tap
into the large volume of activity across the various lists hosted here, but have
always flatly refused. Everywhere you go on the Internet these days, a user
is pummeled with flashing banners and videos and ads for crap that they don't
want. Yahoo, Google and that ilk are not "free". The user must constantly
endure their barrage of commercialism thrust into their face at an ever increasing
rate. Enough is enough, and the Lists at Matronics choose not to succumb
to that.
That being said, running a service of this size is not "free". It costs a lot
of money to maintain the hardware, pay for the electricity, air conditioning,
maintenance contracts, etc, etc. etc. I choose to hold a PBS-like fund raiser
each year during the month of November where I simply send out a short email
every other day asking the members to make a small contribution to support the
operation. That being said, that contribution is completely voluntary and non-compulsory.
Many members choose not to contribute and that's fine.
However, a very modest percentage of the members do choose to make a contribution
and it is that financial support that keeps the Lists running. And that's
it. To my way of thinking, it is a much more pleasant way of maintaining the
Lists and Forums. The other 11 months of the year, you don't see a single advertisement
or request for support. That's refreshing and that is a List and Forum
that I want to belong to. I think other people feel the same way.
Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support these
Lists?
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
USA
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sealant for top skin |
| From: | "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com> |
I agree, order more proseal.
--------
Wayne G.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449231#449231
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
For those of you looking for an inexpensive solution for an ADS-B in (with AHRS
if desired), this appears to be a relatively easy project. I am going to tackle
it early next month.
The website has step-by-step instructions and a list of exact parts to purchase.
https://github.com/ssokol/stratux/wiki/Stratux-Beginner's-Guide
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Donahue" <marktdonahue(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List: Stratux Build |
Would love to hear how your project works out and how difficult it is (was)
to get it put together an place in service.
Mark Donahue
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Justin
Jones
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 4:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Stratux Build
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Justin Jones
-->
For those of you looking for an inexpensive solution for an ADS-B in (with
AHRS if desired), this appears to be a relatively easy project. I am going
to tackle it early next month.
The website has step-by-step instructions and a list of exact parts to
purchase.
https://github.com/ssokol/stratux/wiki/Stratux-Beginner's-Guide
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sealant for top skin |
| From: | "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com> |
Ordered, found small quantity.
--------
Dave Ford
RV6 for sale
RV10 building
Cadillac, MI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449246#449246
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List: Stratux Build |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 11/12/2015 7:55 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
> For those of you looking for an inexpensive solution for an ADS-B in (with AHRS
if desired), this appears to be a relatively easy project. I am going to tackle
it early next month.
It is very easy. I gathered the parts together and assembled it inside
a 3D printed case during one of our EAA meetings.
I had a chance to fly with it a couple of weeks ago, and the
iPad/Stratux/WingX combination saw the same ADS-B traffic as the
SkyRadar/GRT-HX combination.
There is a beginners guide here:
https://github.com/ssokol/stratux/wiki/Stratux-Beginner's-Guide
The 3D case files can be found at:
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1019324
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Flap + aileron + wing tip alignment |
Guys
The plans say to align the aileron, in its neutral position, to the flap when the
flap's leading edge hits
Enviado do meu iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Fwd: Flap + aileron + wing tip alignment |
Enviado do meu iPhone
Too fast hit in the send button....
>
> Guys
>
> The plans say to align the aileron, in its neutral position, to the flap when
the flap's leading edge hits the wing rear spar doubler.
But doing this, the trailing edge of the FG wing tip does not align with the aileron.
What to do?
Carlos
>
> Enviado do meu iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Flap + aileron + wing tip alignment |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
This is common. Fiberglass wingtips too high, too low, too long, etc. You may need
to slice open the joint, bend and re-glue, or sand shorter or add glass to
lengthen. Don't forget to clamp the elevator neutral during the aileron adjustments
- they do move, in tandem, with fore-aft stick motion.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449271#449271
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Published in |
December!
Dear Listers,
The List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! In December I post a
list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists.
Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation
for the Lists.
Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others
that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists
is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
USA
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that
keeps these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment
about how the Lists have helped you!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Flap + aileron + wing tip alignment |
Bob beat me to my response. I was sying to assure the aileron and flap line
up. that is your priority, than I did as Bob mentioned I molded and shapped
the trailing edge of the wingtip to fit. I recall sanding and reinforcement
but I also recall clamping the wingtip to align with aileron (that was
clamped and aligned with Flap) and used a heat gun to soften the fiberglass
to get the last bit of alignment, than finally added some fiberglass cloth
to reinforcement that area. To this day the alignment is the same.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Turner
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 9:38 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fwd: Flap + aileron + wing tip alignment
This is common. Fiberglass wingtips too high, too low, too long, etc. You
may need to slice open the joint, bend and re-glue, or sand shorter or add
glass to lengthen. Don't forget to clamp the elevator neutral during the
aileron adjustments - they do move, in tandem, with fore-aft stick motion.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449271#449271
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Flap + aileron + wing tip alignment |
This is the reason I tell any builder who will listen to not fit the
wingtips until after you put on the wings (at least temporarily), really
make sure you have the flaps rigged right, then rig the ailerons. Do not
rely on the Van's aileron template for rigging. It will get you close but
not close enough.
Make sure you do as Bob says on clamping the elevators in neutral before
doing any flap, aileron or wing tip fitting. I chased my tail forgetting to
do that a few times.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Turner
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 12:38 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fwd: Flap + aileron + wing tip alignment
This is common. Fiberglass wingtips too high, too low, too long, etc. You
may need to slice open the joint, bend and re-glue, or sand shorter or add
glass to lengthen. Don't forget to clamp the elevator neutral during the
aileron adjustments - they do move, in tandem, with fore-aft stick motion.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449271#449271
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fwd: Flap + aileron + wing tip alignment |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Flap + aileron + wing tip alignment |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
I think that method works best. By having wing, flaps and ailerons
installed and rigged first, then you position the tip to line up, secure
it as best you can, and only then drill the screw holes for the tips.
On 11/13/2015 12:43 PM, Linn Walters wrote:
> Same problem on my friends RV-7. You can drill a hole in the tip on
> the side that's high, about 8-10" from leading edge, cleco, and push
> the tip TE so it aligns with aileron. Use a ratchet strap from wing
> LE to tip TE to hold the tip in place to drill and rivet.
> We also used two ratchet straps to hold the tip to the wing.
>
>
> Sent from Samsung tablet cruising on the Allure
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
> Date: 11/13/2015 11:27 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject RV10-List: Fwd: Flap + aileron + wing tip alignment
>
>
> Enviado do meu iPhone
>
> Too fast hit in the send button....
>
> >
> > Guys
> >
> > The plans say to align the aileron, in its neutral position, to the
> flap when the flap's leading edge hits the wing rear spar doubler.
>
> But doing this, the trailing edge of the FG wing tip does not align
> with the aileron.
>
> What to do?
>
> Carlos
>
> >
> > Enviado do meu iPhone
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Sausen <michael(at)sausen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List: Stratux Build |
I'll second what DJ said. I've been messing around with it for the last couple
months and being near the FAF for 18R at DFW, I see plenty of traffic. Now I
just need to find someone to print a case for me.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:02 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: AeroElectric-List: Stratux Build
On 11/12/2015 7:55 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
> For those of you looking for an inexpensive solution for an ADS-B in (with AHRS
if desired), this appears to be a relatively easy project. I am going to tackle
it early next month.
It is very easy. I gathered the parts together and assembled it inside a 3D printed
case during one of our EAA meetings.
I had a chance to fly with it a couple of weeks ago, and the iPad/Stratux/WingX
combination saw the same ADS-B traffic as the SkyRadar/GRT-HX combination.
There is a beginners guide here:
https://github.com/ssokol/stratux/wiki/Stratux-Beginner's-Guide
The 3D case files can be found at:
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1019324
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/ Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List: Stratux Build |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 11/13/2015 04:07 PM, Michael Sausen wrote:
> Now I just need to find someone to print a case for me.
Plenty of places that will do that for you.
The first is http://www.makexyz.com/
You upload your files to the website, and they will give you a quote.
The 2 part case I posted is about $50 from them, including shipping.
The second is sort of a broker service. You upload your files, and get
to choose from a bunch of places:
http://www.3dhubs.com
I'm sure there are other options.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List: Stratux Build |
Unless you're going dual, you dont need a case. It comes with it, if not
there should be an extender to make it work. That may be easier than
building a new case?
I just need to figure out how to get it to work on FlightPlanGO. It
supposedly does already, just nothing explaining how?
-----Original Message-----
From: Dj Merrill
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: AeroElectric-List: Stratux Build
On 11/13/2015 04:07 PM, Michael Sausen wrote:
> Now I just need to find someone to print a case for me.
Plenty of places that will do that for you.
The first is http://www.makexyz.com/
You upload your files to the website, and they will give you a quote.
The 2 part case I posted is about $50 from them, including shipping.
The second is sort of a broker service. You upload your files, and get
to choose from a bunch of places:
http://www.3dhubs.com
I'm sure there are other options.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List: Stratux Build |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 11/13/2015 4:49 PM, Pascal wrote:
> Unless you're going dual, you dont need a case. It comes with it, if
> not there should be an extender to make it work. That may be easier than
> building a new case?
The Stratux DIY project does not come with a case, you have to either
make something or buy something.
Too many parts and wires not to put all the various pieces inside
something, plus the case holds the antennas properly.
Search the term "stratux" on http://www.thingiverse.com for options,
including a case for the single band version.
For the very tiny cost increase, I can't imagine why one wouldn't build
the dual band version.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List: Stratux Build |
I was referring to the link for the starter kit
(http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00MV6TAJI/ref=cm_sw_su_dp) Raspberry Pi 2 +
Edimax WiFi + Preloaded 8GB SD Card + Case + Power
Yes in the case of the Dual case- one may need to replace the case with one
that works for 2 USB next/top of each other.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dj Merrill
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: AeroElectric-List: Stratux Build
On 11/13/2015 4:49 PM, Pascal wrote:
> Unless you're going dual, you dont need a case. It comes with it, if
> not there should be an extender to make it work. That may be easier than
> building a new case?
The Stratux DIY project does not come with a case, you have to either
make something or buy something.
Too many parts and wires not to put all the various pieces inside
something, plus the case holds the antennas properly.
Search the term "stratux" on http://www.thingiverse.com for options,
including a case for the single band version.
For the very tiny cost increase, I can't imagine why one wouldn't build
the dual band version.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List: Stratux Build |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 11/13/2015 5:24 PM, Pascal wrote:
>
> I was referring to the link for the starter kit
> (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00MV6TAJI/ref=cm_sw_su_dp) Raspberry Pi 2 +
> Edimax WiFi + Preloaded 8GB SD Card + Case + Power
>
> Yes in the case of the Dual case- one may need to replace the case with
> one that works for 2 USB next/top of each other.
Ah! That case is just for the Raspberry Pi, and doesn't enclose any of
the other parts of the Stratux system (GPS, Antennas, various wiring, etc).
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stratux Build |
makerxyz was ~$130.00 for the single band case in nylon. I'm sure the
dual would be more.
3dhubs didn't find anything cheaper than ~$180.00 for the single case in
nylon.
Planned on nylon for better heat tolerance, which bumps up the price.
What material did you have it printed in?
-Sean
> Dj Merrill
> November 13, 2015 at 3:17 PM
>
>
> Plenty of places that will do that for you.
>
> The first is http://www.makexyz.com/
> You upload your files to the website, and they will give you a quote.
> The 2 part case I posted is about $50 from them, including shipping.
>
> The second is sort of a broker service. You upload your files, and get
> to choose from a bunch of places:
> http://www.3dhubs.com
>
>
> I'm sure there are other options.
>
> -Dj
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stratux Build |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 11/13/2015 5:57 PM, Sean Stephens wrote:
> Planned on nylon for better heat tolerance, which bumps up the price.
> What material did you have it printed in?
ABS plastic. 3dhubs was something like $35.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List: Stratux Build |
I have FltplanGo, and there is the option to add a custom ADS-B. I just dont
know what the "port" would be. How did you get it configured on the WingX?
Thx
-----Original Message-----
From: Dj Merrill
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 6:01 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: AeroElectric-List: Stratux Build
On 11/12/2015 7:55 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
> For those of you looking for an inexpensive solution for an ADS-B in (with
> AHRS if desired), this appears to be a relatively easy project. I am going
> to tackle it early next month.
It is very easy. I gathered the parts together and assembled it inside
a 3D printed case during one of our EAA meetings.
I had a chance to fly with it a couple of weeks ago, and the
iPad/Stratux/WingX combination saw the same ADS-B traffic as the
SkyRadar/GRT-HX combination.
There is a beginners guide here:
https://github.com/ssokol/stratux/wiki/Stratux-Beginner's-Guide
The 3D case files can be found at:
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1019324
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List: Stratux Build |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 11/14/2015 12:34 PM, Pascal wrote:
> How did you get it configured on the WingX?
The Stratux creates a private wireless network. On the iPad, all you
have to do is go to the wireless settings and join the "stratux"
wireless network. WingX then sees the ADS-B receiver and "just works".
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Hi
I am just starting my annual inspection and have a couple of questions related
to wheel servicing. There are:
1. Does anyone have a simple / safe / effective means for lifting and supporting
a wing while a wheel is removed. I have a motorcycle jack that I have used under
the fuse but am wondering if there is something better.
2. How often should tires be swapped from side to side
Cheers
Les
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449398#449398
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wheel Servicing |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Depends on the type of aircraft. You can use a padded sawhorse if it is
tall enough and you have helper to move it in place. Or most wing jacks
work fine when you replace tie down eye with a round headed carriage
bolt for the jack point.
To get even wear you would have to reverse the tire on the wheel.
Swapping wheels side for side will not do anything.
On 11/14/2015 7:33 PM, kearney wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I am just starting my annual inspection and have a couple of questions related
to wheel servicing. There are:
>
> 1. Does anyone have a simple / safe / effective means for lifting and supporting
a wing while a wheel is removed. I have a motorcycle jack that I have used
under the fuse but am wondering if there is something better.
>
> 2. How often should tires be swapped from side to side
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449398#449398
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wheel Servicing |
I have jacks that use a hard point in the wing tie down hole. They use an inexpensive
bottle jack from harbor freight.
I think it really depends on how much you are flying. I swapped mine when I
was around 100 tach hours. They didn't really show any wear, but I swapped
them anyways.
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 14, 2015, at 9:33 PM, kearney wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> I am just starting my annual inspection and have a couple of questions related
to wheel servicing. There are:
>
> 1. Does anyone have a simple / safe / effective means for lifting and supporting
a wing while a wheel is removed. I have a motorcycle jack that I have used
under the fuse but am wondering if there is something better.
>
> 2. How often should tires be swapped from side to side
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449398#449398
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wheel Servicing |
I'm using a couple of work horses that are adjustable under the wings and
they have help well.
The tires- look at the outside (as the rest doesnt get much wear, once the
tread starts to disappear, its time to flip (as in outside becomes inside of
wheel) I just bought replacement tires as the originals are now reaching the
end of the tread life. The center of the tires look pretty darn new- darn
it!!
-----Original Message-----
From: kearney
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 6:33 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Wheel Servicing
Hi
I am just starting my annual inspection and have a couple of questions
related to wheel servicing. There are:
1. Does anyone have a simple / safe / effective means for lifting and
supporting a wing while a wheel is removed. I have a motorcycle jack that I
have used under the fuse but am wondering if there is something better.
2. How often should tires be swapped from side to side
Cheers
Les
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449398#449398
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> |
Harbor Freight has some hi-lift bottle jacks that work well. Drilled a hole
in the top of the ram to receive a threaded rod that replaces the tie down
ring. Little plywood to make a stablizing stand and it works well.
Albert Gardner
RV-10 N991RV
Yuma, AZ
Hi
I am just starting my annual inspection and have a couple of questions
related to wheel servicing. There are:
1. Does anyone have a simple / safe / effective means for lifting and
supporting a wing while a wheel is removed. I have a motorcycle jack that I
have used under the fuse but am wondering if there is something better.
Les
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wheel Servicing |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Here's my HF bottle jack setup )thanks to other posters/builders) Wing
Jack using HF bottle jack and plywood
<http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=MauleDriver&project=224&category=7984&log=154391&row=14>
Electrical conduit worked over with a vise completes the jack. Use
carriage bolts on the conduit ends. The rounded ends keep the plywood
just far enough off the concrete floor to keep it dry and slide easily.
And it works on mud....
This jack got a good work out when I recently got stuck in the mud. I
was able to easily jack up a wing at a time, put ply underneath each
wheel and roll it out. The carriage bolt head on the dimpled bottle
jack shaft is amazingly stable and secure. It would make an ugly hole
if the wing fell off the jack but I'm now quite confident of its security.
On 11/15/2015 8:46 AM, Albert wrote:
> Harbor Freight has some hi-lift bottle jacks that work well. Drilled a hole
> in the top of the ram to receive a threaded rod that replaces the tie down
> ring. Little plywood to make a stablizing stand and it works well.
> Albert Gardner
> RV-10 N991RV
> Yuma, AZ
>
> Hi
> I am just starting my annual inspection and have a couple of questions
> related to wheel servicing. There are:
>
> 1. Does anyone have a simple / safe / effective means for lifting and
> supporting a wing while a wheel is removed. I have a motorcycle jack that I
> have used under the fuse but am wondering if there is something better.
> Les
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wheel Servicing |
| From: | "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
HI Kelly
You are quite right - I was careless in my wording. Side to side swapping only
changes the rotation direction of the wheel but not the tread in contact with
the ground. I should have said reversing the tire on the wheel. My only excuse
is that it was a long day yesterday taking things apart......
Cheers
Les
Kellym wrote:
> Depends on the type of aircraft. You can use a padded sawhorse if it is
> tall enough and you have helper to move it in place. Or most wing jacks
> work fine when you replace tie down eye with a round headed carriage
> bolt for the jack point.
> To get even wear you would have to reverse the tire on the wheel.
> Swapping wheels side for side will not do anything.
>
> On 11/14/2015 7:33 PM, kearney wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I am just starting my annual inspection and have a couple of questions related
to wheel servicing. There are:
> >
> > 1. Does anyone have a simple / safe / effective means for lifting and supporting
a wing while a wheel is removed. I have a motorcycle jack that I have used
under the fuse but am wondering if there is something better.
> >
> > 2. How often should tires be swapped from side to side
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Les
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449398#449398
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449415#449415
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Speaking of tyres / wheels |
| From: | "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Hi
Speaking of tryes and wheels, a friend was flying his Maule recently and ended
up with a near flat tyre on landing. He suspects he developed a leak while in
flight or shortly before takeoff as pre-flight was normal.
This led to an exciting but fortunately painless landing. If he had known one of
his wheels was soft he would have been better prepared for things.
For years I have had TPMS in my car. Has anyone found a RV10 compatible tire pressure
sensor system? I found this on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Wireless-Monitoring-STEELMATE-Cigarette-Accessories/dp/B015QTPIRO/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1447603580&sr=8-7&keywords=steelmate+tpms
Inquiring minds need to know....
Les
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449416#449416
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of tyres / wheels |
Keep in mind we use tube tires so any sensor would have to integrate to the tube
not the tire.
Tim
> On Nov 15, 2015, at 10:18 AM, kearney wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> Speaking of tryes and wheels, a friend was flying his Maule recently and ended
up with a near flat tyre on landing. He suspects he developed a leak while in
flight or shortly before takeoff as pre-flight was normal.
>
> This led to an exciting but fortunately painless landing. If he had known one
of his wheels was soft he would have been better prepared for things.
>
> For years I have had TPMS in my car. Has anyone found a RV10 compatible tire
pressure sensor system? I found this on Amazon:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Wireless-Monitoring-STEELMATE-Cigarette-Accessories/dp/B015QTPIRO/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1447603580&sr=8-7&keywords=steelmate+tpms
>
> Inquiring minds need to know....
>
> Les
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449416#449416
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of tyres / wheels |
As a simple data point, I had a blow-out on landing once in a -10. It did shred
the wheel pant, but there was not a strong pull to that side. There was some,
but it was easy to keep the plane on the runway. In this case, a floor dolly
and a couple of young guys to squat the wing to get the jack under it did the
trick to free up the runway.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 15, 2015, at 11:18 AM, kearney wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> Speaking of tryes and wheels, a friend was flying his Maule recently and ended
up with a near flat tyre on landing. He suspects he developed a leak while in
flight or shortly before takeoff as pre-flight was normal.
>
> This led to an exciting but fortunately painless landing. If he had known one
of his wheels was soft he would have been better prepared for things.
>
> For years I have had TPMS in my car. Has anyone found a RV10 compatible tire
pressure sensor system? I found this on Amazon:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Wireless-Monitoring-STEELMATE-Cigarette-Accessories/dp/B015QTPIRO/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1447603580&sr=8-7&keywords=steelmate+tpms
>
> Inquiring minds need to know....
>
> Les
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449416#449416
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of tyres / wheels |
| From: | "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Tim
Some of the sensor systems seem to use pressurized caps. The problem with that
is if the cap fails - well you have a warning of the impending issue.
What I would really like is to put a SMartThings hub in the hanger and then be
able tyre pressure remotely. That way I could catch a pressure problem before
my wheel pants get broken. But perhaps that is just way too much tech - even for
a -10 .
Chees
Les
Tim Olson wrote:
> Keep in mind we use tube tires so any sensor would have to integrate to the tube
not the tire.
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 2015, at 10:18 AM, kearney wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Speaking of tryes and wheels, a friend was flying his Maule recently and ended
up with a near flat tyre on landing. He suspects he developed a leak while
in flight or shortly before takeoff as pre-flight was normal.
> >
> > This led to an exciting but fortunately painless landing. If he had known
one of his wheels was soft he would have been better prepared for things.
> >
> > For years I have had TPMS in my car. Has anyone found a RV10 compatible tire
pressure sensor system? I found this on Amazon:
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/Wireless-Monitoring-STEELMATE-Cigarette-Accessories/dp/B015QTPIRO/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1447603580&sr=8-7&keywords=steelmate+tpms
> >
> > Inquiring minds need to know....
> >
> > Les
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449416#449416
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449423#449423
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
A quick reminder that November is the annual Matronics List Fund Raiser. The Lists
are 100% member supported and all of the operational costs are covered solely
through your Contributions during this time of the year.
*Your* personal Contribution makes a difference and keeps all of the Matronics
Email Lists and Forums completely ad-free.
Please make your Contribution today to keep these services up and running for another
great year!
Use a credit card or your PayPal account here:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, by sending a personal check to:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you in advance!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wheel Servicing |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
Back from the cruise .....
Here's what I did.
Bought a scissor jack that fits under the nut on the nosewheel. Jack it
up and do your tire work. For removing the fork you'll have to place a
sawhorse under the fuse.
Bought a 3' X 3/4" dia. pipe and inserted into the axle on main gear.
Remove the axle nut. Use the scissor jack way out on the end of the pipe
and jack up 'till the tire is 2" off the floor. Remove brake pad. Slide
the wheel off onto the pipe. Measure the height of axle center to the
floor .... X". Glue two pieces of 2X4 2x" long together on the 4" side
or use 4X4. Drill a 1" hole in the center (1X from end) through the
glue line. Cut in half giving two pieces of 4X4 that's X" long with a
groove in it. Put it under the axle and lower the jack. Remove the
pipe and service the wheel. I used this a lot when I was fitting the
wheel pants after the initial screw-hole locations had been done because
I elected to epoxy the lower fairing to the wheel pant.
Linn
On 11/14/2015 9:33 PM, kearney wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I am just starting my annual inspection and have a couple of questions related
to wheel servicing. There are:
>
> 1. Does anyone have a simple / safe / effective means for lifting and supporting
a wing while a wheel is removed. I have a motorcycle jack that I have used
under the fuse but am wondering if there is something better.
>
> 2. How often should tires be swapped from side to side
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449398#449398
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of tyres / wheels |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
That sensor is made to go inside the tire with the stem out. Won't work
with tube-type tires. However, they make screw-on sensors that replace
the Schrader valve cap for tube-type tires. Don't know if the caps hit
the axle nut on angle valve tubes. I have 90* stems so it wouldn't be a
problem until I tried to get them off and put air in the tire with the
wheel pants on.
As Jesse said .... flat tire is a non-event so I'd pass on the TPMS
system and just plan on a landing with a bad tire each time. If your
other car is a tail dragger you already have that skill. ;-)
Linn ..... painting
On 11/15/2015 11:18 AM, kearney wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Speaking of tryes and wheels, a friend was flying his Maule recently and ended
up with a near flat tyre on landing. He suspects he developed a leak while in
flight or shortly before takeoff as pre-flight was normal.
>
> This led to an exciting but fortunately painless landing. If he had known one
of his wheels was soft he would have been better prepared for things.
>
> For years I have had TPMS in my car. Has anyone found a RV10 compatible tire
pressure sensor system? I found this on Amazon:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Wireless-Monitoring-STEELMATE-Cigarette-Accessories/dp/B015QTPIRO/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1447603580&sr=8-7&keywords=steelmate+tpms
>
> Inquiring minds need to know....
>
> Les
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449416#449416
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of tyres / wheels |
| From: | Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Lin
How did you manage access to the stems?
I was think of putting 90 degree extensions on as well but was unsure if there
was enough clearance.
Cheers
Les
Dropping your pants to check your pressure is a pain.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 15, 2015, at 13:09, Linn Walters wrote:
>
>
> That sensor is made to go inside the tire with the stem out. Won't work with
tube-type tires. However, they make screw-on sensors that replace the Schrader
valve cap for tube-type tires. Don't know if the caps hit the axle nut on angle
valve tubes. I have 90* stems so it wouldn't be a problem until I tried
to get them off and put air in the tire with the wheel pants on.
>
> As Jesse said .... flat tire is a non-event so I'd pass on the TPMS system and
just plan on a landing with a bad tire each time. If your other car is a tail
dragger you already have that skill. ;-)
> Linn ..... painting
>
>
>> On 11/15/2015 11:18 AM, kearney wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Speaking of tryes and wheels, a friend was flying his Maule recently and ended
up with a near flat tyre on landing. He suspects he developed a leak while
in flight or shortly before takeoff as pre-flight was normal.
>>
>> This led to an exciting but fortunately painless landing. If he had known one
of his wheels was soft he would have been better prepared for things.
>>
>> For years I have had TPMS in my car. Has anyone found a RV10 compatible tire
pressure sensor system? I found this on Amazon:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Wireless-Monitoring-STEELMATE-Cigarette-Accessories/dp/B015QTPIRO/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1447603580&sr=8-7&keywords=steelmate+tpms
>>
>> Inquiring minds need to know....
>>
>> Les
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449416#449416
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of tyres / wheels |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
Folks may not like my solution, and for various reasons don't recommend
anyone else do it.
I drilled a new hole in the wheel to accept the 90* stem. I chamfered
the original hole on both sides and filled it with flox to form a plug.
Assembled the wheel and all was right again in the world.
When I'm done building (in painting mode right now), I'll get a tire
extension and drill a hole at the base of the wheel pant just large
enough for the extension to go through and lined up with the valve stem.
Screw on the extension and fill the tire.
Whoops!!! How to get the stem lined up with that tiny hole? Get the
tire all lined up and paint a line on the inside of the tire wall ....
and you can see the white mark as you pull the plane forward with your
towbar.
Linn
On 11/15/2015 3:55 PM, Les Kearney wrote:
>
> Lin
>
> How did you manage access to the stems?
>
> I was think of putting 90 degree extensions on as well but was unsure if there
was enough clearance.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
> Dropping your pants to check your pressure is a pain.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Nov 15, 2015, at 13:09, Linn Walters wrote:
>>
>>
>> That sensor is made to go inside the tire with the stem out. Won't work with
tube-type tires. However, they make screw-on sensors that replace the Schrader
valve cap for tube-type tires. Don't know if the caps hit the axle nut on
angle valve tubes. I have 90* stems so it wouldn't be a problem until I tried
to get them off and put air in the tire with the wheel pants on.
>>
>> As Jesse said .... flat tire is a non-event so I'd pass on the TPMS system and
just plan on a landing with a bad tire each time. If your other car is a tail
dragger you already have that skill. ;-)
>> Linn ..... painting
>>
>>
>>> On 11/15/2015 11:18 AM, kearney wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Speaking of tryes and wheels, a friend was flying his Maule recently and ended
up with a near flat tyre on landing. He suspects he developed a leak while
in flight or shortly before takeoff as pre-flight was normal.
>>>
>>> This led to an exciting but fortunately painless landing. If he had known one
of his wheels was soft he would have been better prepared for things.
>>>
>>> For years I have had TPMS in my car. Has anyone found a RV10 compatible tire
pressure sensor system? I found this on Amazon:
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Wireless-Monitoring-STEELMATE-Cigarette-Accessories/dp/B015QTPIRO/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1447603580&sr=8-7&keywords=steelmate+tpms
>>>
>>> Inquiring minds need to know....
>>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449416#449416
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | FS: Slick 6393 Mag, Auto Plug Harness, Mag Drive, Adapter |
| From: | "Barry" <blmarzaa(at)gmail.com> |
These items were removed to install an EIS electronic ignition
Slick 6393 Retard Breaker mag with 534 hrs. since new; at 493 hrs. the 500 hr.
inspection detailed in the Unison L-1363B Overhaul Manual was completed and new
primary contact points, retard breaker contact points, cam and carbon brush
and spring were replaced. The mag was modified with a 3/16" hole in the body for
the G3I electronic ignition and now has a bolt in the hole; it does not effect
normal operation. I can include a yellow tag if requested. No core is required.
New $1100 Sell for $415
Auto plug harness for 6 Cylinder Slick Mag in the LH position, 40 hr. since new.
Harness was built up from MSD 8.5mm Super Conductor Spark Plug Wire with the
factory plug boots I/A/W the manual from G3I.
New $350 Sell for $180
Mag drive p/n 73000 New $160 Sell for $75
Spacer/ Adapter p/n 73627 New $135 Sell for $45
Sell all four items for $685
All prices include shipping in the US and PayPal fees
blmarzaa(at)gmail.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449516#449516
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List Contribution - Value of the List... |
If you look forward to checking your List email everyday (and a lot of you have
written to say that you do!), then you're probably getting at least $20 or $30
worth of Entertainment from the Lists each year. You'd pay twice that for a
subscription to some magazine or even a dinner out. Isn't the List worth at least
that much to you? Wouldn't it be great if you could pay that amount and get
a well-managed media source free of advertising, SPAM, and viruses? Come to
think of it, you do... :-)
Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support these
Lists?
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
USA
I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that has made a Contribution thus far during
this year's List Fund Raiser!! These Lists are made possible exclusively through
YOUR generosity!!
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wheel Servicing |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
I use the same thing, only I welded the jack stand frame
just because I could. But, rather than relying on a
pin or carriage bolt in the wing tiedown, I
have a machined aluminum recepticle with a bolt
that I screw into the tiedown that completely surrounds
the jack head about 3/4" deep, so there's no way it
can slip off. I don't think it's necessary to go that
far, but it was as easy to drill the aluminum block
as it would have been to drill the divot in the head of
the jack and find a good strong grade 5 or 8 bolt to
make into a pin. The jacks are very nice to have
and were pretty cheap.
http://www.myrv10.com/tips/generaltips.html#Jacking_the_RV-10
Tim
On 11/15/2015 9:09 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
> Here's my HF bottle jack setup )thanks to other posters/builders) Wing
> Jack using HF bottle jack and plywood
> <http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=MauleDriver&project=224&category=7984&log=154391&row=14>
>
> Electrical conduit worked over with a vise completes the jack. Use
> carriage bolts on the conduit ends. The rounded ends keep the plywood
> just far enough off the concrete floor to keep it dry and slide easily.
> And it works on mud....
>
> This jack got a good work out when I recently got stuck in the mud. I
> was able to easily jack up a wing at a time, put ply underneath each
> wheel and roll it out. The carriage bolt head on the dimpled bottle
> jack shaft is amazingly stable and secure. It would make an ugly hole
> if the wing fell off the jack but I'm now quite confident of its security.
>
> On 11/15/2015 8:46 AM, Albert wrote:
>> Harbor Freight has some hi-lift bottle jacks that work well. Drilled a hole
>> in the top of the ram to receive a threaded rod that replaces the tie down
>> ring. Little plywood to make a stablizing stand and it works well.
>> Albert Gardner
>> RV-10 N991RV
>> Yuma, AZ
>>
>> Hi
>> I am just starting my annual inspection and have a couple of questions
>> related to wheel servicing. There are:
>>
>> 1. Does anyone have a simple / safe / effective means for lifting and
>> supporting a wing while a wheel is removed. I have a motorcycle jack that I
>> have used under the fuse but am wondering if there is something better.
>> Les
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net> |
this is how I did it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> |
If you have gear leg fairings installed this method won't work. There is
also an extension that goes into the gear leg after you remove the axel nut.
It has a place where a bottle jack would fit to raise the wheel off of the
ground. But, you have to remove the wheel pant first. First flat I had away
from home I found the two bottom screws in my wheel pant were almot sitting
on the ground and I couldn't remove them. Now those botton screws are hex
head so I can get to them. Even so I prefer my wing jacks.
Albert Gardner
RV-10 N991RV
Yuma, AZ
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Hukill
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 7:16 AM
Subject: RV10-List: wheel jack
this is how I did it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
I could see the problem with the lower screws coming so I moved them up
2" from the wheel cutout.
I have 6 nutplates on my Pitts that I can't get to with the wings on
..... and the holes are terribly noticeable. I give a lot of thought to
where I place the nutplates now!
Again, my scissors jack fits under a 3' X 3/4" iron pipe inserted in the
main axle. Lots cheaper than gear leg fitting and it works with the
gear fairings on.
Linn
On 11/17/2015 8:02 PM, Albert wrote:
>
> If you have gear leg fairings installed this method won't work. There
> is also an extension that goes into the gear leg after you remove the
> axel nut. It has a place where a bottle jack would fit to raise the
> wheel off of the ground. But, you have to remove the wheel pant first.
> First flat I had away from home I found the two bottom screws in my
> wheel pant were almot sitting on the ground and I couldn't remove
> them. Now those botton screws are hex head so I can get to them. Even
> so I prefer my wing jacks.
>
> Albert Gardner
>
> RV-10 N991RV
>
> Yuma, AZ
>
> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Chris Hukill
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 17, 2015 7:16 AM
> *To:* matronics
> *Subject:* RV10-List: wheel jack
>
> this is how I did it
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gulf" <fgcobble(at)roadrunner.com> |
Count me in for one if you wind up making a batch for everybody
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Hukill
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 6:16 AM
Subject: RV10-List: wheel jack
this is how I did it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | What's Your Contribution Used For? |
Dear Listers,
You might have wondered at some point, "What's my Contribution used for?" Here
are just a few examples of what your direct List support enables... It provides
for the expensive, commercial-grade Internet connection used on the List.
It pays for the regular system hardware and software upgrades enabling the highest
performance possible for List services such as the Archive Search Engine,
List Browser, and the Web Forums. It pays for the over 23 years of on-line
archive data always available for instant search and access. And, it offsets
the many hours spent writing, developing, and maintaining the custom applications
that power these List Service such as the List Browse, Search Engine, Forums,
and Wiki.
But most importantly, your List Contribution enables a forum where you and your
peers can communicate freely in an environment that is free from moderation,
censorship, advertising, commercialism, SPAM, and computer viruses.
It is YOUR CONTRIBUTION that directly enables all these aspects of Matronics List
services. Please support it today with your List Contribution. Its one of
the best investments you can make in your Sport!
List Contribution Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or, you can send a personal check to the following address:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore, CA 94550
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net> |
Albert, actually it does work with the gear leg fairing attached. In
fact, you can leave it on the gear and re-install the wheel pant and go
flying if you wanted to (without the bottle jack, of course). A floor or
scissor jack will work if your traveling without the bottle jack.
It fits on the leg where the pant to leg fairing is, and clears both. I
designed it that way so it can be stored there if you wanted to (either
gear leg). You would need to use lock nuts to secure it if you were to
leave it on for flight.
With the tire just off the ground, I tested the stability of the system
by ranking on the wing tip fore and aft, up and down, simulating about a
force 5 hurricane, and was unable to knock it off the jack. Try that
with your wing jacks. This is the safest way to service a wheel.
Chris Hukill
From: "Albert" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: wheel jack
If you have gear leg fairings installed this method won't work. There
is
also an extension that goes into the gear leg after you remove the axel
nut.
It has a place where a bottle jack would fit to raise the wheel off of
the
ground. But, you have to remove the wheel pant first. First flat I had
away
from home I found the two bottom screws in my wheel pant were almot
sitting
on the ground and I couldn't remove them. Now those botton screws are
hex
head so I can get to them. Even so I prefer my wing jacks.
Albert Gardner
RV-10 N991RV
Yuma, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
Where can I buy one. J
You have me sold. I use the Vans solution and not very happy with it, but
it works in a pinch..
I am doing a tire rotation in Dec so I will need both tires off the ground
at the same time. Maybe I want two.....
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Hukill
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 6:27 AM
Subject: RV10-List: wheel jack
Albert, actually it does work with the gear leg fairing attached. In fact,
you can leave it on the gear and re-install the wheel pant and go flying if
you wanted to (without the bottle jack, of course). A floor or scissor jack
will work if your traveling without the bottle jack.
It fits on the leg where the pant to leg fairing is, and clears both. I
designed it that way so it can be stored there if you wanted to (either gear
leg). You would need to use lock nuts to secure it if you were to leave it
on for flight.
With the tire just off the ground, I tested the stability of the system by
ranking on the wing tip fore and aft, up and down, simulating about a force
5 hurricane, and was unable to knock it off the jack. Try that with your
wing jacks. This is the safest way to service a wheel.
Chris Hukill
From: "Albert" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: wheel jack
If you have gear leg fairings installed this method won't work. There is
also an extension that goes into the gear leg after you remove the axel nut.
It has a place where a bottle jack would fit to raise the wheel off of the
ground. But, you have to remove the wheel pant first. First flat I had away
from home I found the two bottom screws in my wheel pant were almot sitting
on the ground and I couldn't remove them. Now those botton screws are hex
head so I can get to them. Even so I prefer my wing jacks.
Albert Gardner
RV-10 N991RV
Yuma, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | wheel jack fixture |
Unfortunately there is no source to buy this fixture, that I could find,
hence I made my own. It was easy enough to build, but someone with a CNC
shop could mass produce and sell them for profit. With 10,000 RVs
flying, most with round gear legs, there is certainly a market. As far
as needing two, you could get by with one. Just jack the first wheel
and then lower the axel onto a 4X4, remove the jack and raise the second
wheel. With the first wheel on the 4X4, I would make sure the wings are
tied down. I personally would service one wheel at a time though. To
build one, get some thick wall 4130, turn the inside of the large tube
to match the taper of the leg. This step is optional if you
don=99t have a lathe. Instead get tube that is slightly larger
than the legs, and wrap the leg with tape, with more wraps at the
bottom, to make the leg parallel. Next cut the tube for the bottle jack
head at the correct angle and use a mill, or file to match the outer
diameter and angle of the leg tube were it will attach. Size and weld a
thick washer to the inside of the bottle jack tube from the top, so that
the jack head has something to push on, and is captured snuggly into the
tube. This step assures the jack can=99t slip out of the fixture.
Weld the jack tube to the leg tube. Next fabricate the four bolt tubes
from again thick wall 4130, and weld them to the leg tube, making sure
they are all square to each other and the leg tube, otherwise it will be
difficult to get all the bolts through the lower half as an assembly.
After welding everything together, cut it all in half. Done!
Chris Hukill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: wheel jack fixture |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
For those not having welding or lathe, you can make something similar with
a couple 2X4 scraps. Just drill for a couple 1/4" bolts beyond the width of
the steel tube. Then measure gear leg and get a hole saw of right diameter.
Bolt the pieces together, run the hole saw through at the parting line, and
you are done. I did similar deal for flat steel gear legs for older Cessna.
Worked fine. I will be using wing jacks since I have had a pair for the 15
years I owned my Mooney and needed to jack it up for any gear work.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Chris Hukill wrote:
> Unfortunately there is no source to buy this fixture, that I could find,
> hence I made my own. It was easy enough to build, but someone with a CNC
> shop could mass produce and sell them for profit. With 10,000 RVs flying,
> most with round gear legs, there is certainly a market. As far as needing
> two, you could get by with one. Just jack the first wheel and then lower
> the axel onto a 4X4, remove the jack and raise the second wheel. With the
> first wheel on the 4X4, I would make sure the wings are tied down. I
> personally would service one wheel at a time though. To build one, get so
me
> thick wall 4130, turn the inside of the large tube to match the taper of
> the leg. This step is optional if you don=99t have a lathe. Instead
get tube
> that is slightly larger than the legs, and wrap the leg with tape, with
> more wraps at the bottom, to make the leg parallel. Next cut the tube for
> the bottle jack head at the correct angle and use a mill, or file to matc
h
> the outer diameter and angle of the leg tube were it will attach. Size an
d
> weld a thick washer to the inside of the bottle jack tube from the top, s
o
> that the jack head has something to push on, and is captured snuggly into
> the tube. This step assures the jack can=99t slip out of the fixtur
e. Weld
> the jack tube to the leg tube. Next fabricate the four bolt tubes from
> again thick wall 4130, and weld them to the leg tube, making sure they ar
e
> all square to each other and the leg tube, otherwise it will be difficult
> to get all the bolts through the lower half as an assembly. After welding
> everything together, cut it all in half. Done!
> Chris Hukill
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... |
Dear Listers,
Just a reminder that November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution
today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these great
List services!! Pick up a really nice free gift with your qualifying Contribution
too!
The Contribution Site is fast and easy:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FS: Slick 6393 Mag, Auto Plug Harness, Mag Drive, Adapter |
| From: | "Barry" <blmarzaa(at)gmail.com> |
Price Reduced
Mag. $385
Harness $150
Mag. Drive $65
Spacer $45
Total for all $600
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=449851#449851
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Coming Soon - The List of Contributors - Please Make A Contribution |
Today!
Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone
that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way
of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation
for the Lists.
Please take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors
(LOC)! As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems
at least as valuable a building / entertainment tool as your typical magazine
subscription!
Assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate the
Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your
Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps
these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about
how the Lists have helped you!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Fund Raiser Behind By 22% - Please Contribute Today! |
Dear Listers,
The percentage of members making a Contribution to support the Lists this year
is currently behind last year by at this time by roughly 22%. Please take this
opportunity to show your support for the Matronics Lists and Forums!
Please remember that it is *solely* your direct Contributions that keep these Lists
and Forums up and running and most importantly - AD FREE! If the members
don't want to support the Lists directly, then I might have to add advertisements
to offset the costs of running the Lists. But I don't want to have to do
that. I really like the non-commercial atmosphere here and I think that a lot
of the members appreciate that too.
Please take a moment to make a Contribution today in support of the continued ad-free
operation of all these Lists:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
USA
I want to send out a word of appreciation to all of the members that have already
made their generous Contribution to support the Lists! Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Email List and Forums Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven DeFord <riveteddragon(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Securing Conduit |
When running conduit through lightening holes (generally much bigger than the conduit
diameter), what have people used to secure it? RTV? Make brackets and
clamps? Just leave them free to flop?
Steven DeFord
Sent from my iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Securing Conduit |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
I would not let them flop. I used 1/2" Sched. 40 (thin wall) PVC pipe
and plastic 'hangars' made to hold the pipe under a ceiling joist ...
picture the pipe clamp with vertical 'ears'. I riveted the pipe hangar
to the side of the larger lightening hole. The plastic clamp has to be
spread out to fit around the PVC pipe .... I tried the ribbed plastic
conduit and just couldn't make it work for me .... all of it ended up in
the recycle bin ..... and the smooth PVC pipe makes running more wires
really easy.
Linn
On 11/23/2015 5:11 PM, Steven DeFord wrote:
>
> When running conduit through lightening holes (generally much bigger than the
conduit diameter), what have people used to secure it? RTV? Make brackets and
clamps? Just leave them free to flop?
>
>
> Steven DeFord
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Securing Conduit |
| From: | Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com> |
I drilled two opposing holes across the lightening hole and used safety wire to
trap the conduit in the center. Just did enough ribs to keep it reasonably secure.
Marcus
On Nov 23, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Steven DeFord wrote:
When running conduit through lightening holes (generally much bigger than the conduit
diameter), what have people used to secure it? RTV? Make brackets and
clamps? Just leave them free to flop?
Steven DeFord
Sent from my iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Securing Conduit |
If you use the black conduit from Van's, just enlarge the small hole in the rib
to 3/4" and th conduit will stay in place just fine. Much easier than attempting
to secure it in the lightening holes.
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Steven DeFord wrote:
>
>
> When running conduit through lightening holes (generally much bigger than the
conduit diameter), what have people used to secure it? RTV? Make brackets and
clamps? Just leave them free to flop?
>
>
> Steven DeFord
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Securing Conduit |
If you are talking about the lighting holes in the side fuselage, you can
get a rubber grommet that fits it just right - and the ID provides a good
friction fit for the conduit (I got mine from Stein Air
http://www.steinair.com/store.cfm?tlcatid=14 ). For under the rear floor I
make a strap. For new holes, as Bob says make the hole small enough to be a
friction fit for the conduit. Do not make the turns too tight so you can
use a string to run wires.
I ran three conduits on each side and ended up filling five of them.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Securing Conduit
If you use the black conduit from Van's, just enlarge the small hole in the
rib to 3/4" and th conduit will stay in place just fine. Much easier than
attempting to secure it in the lightening holes.
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Steven DeFord
wrote:
>
> -->
>
> When running conduit through lightening holes (generally much bigger than
the conduit diameter), what have people used to secure it? RTV? Make
brackets and clamps? Just leave them free to flop?
>
>
> Steven DeFord
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Securing Conduit |
I used a small piece of angle riveted to the rib, then used an Adel clamp to clamp
the conduit to the angle.
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:11, Steven DeFord wrote:
>
>
> When running conduit through lightening holes (generally much bigger than the
conduit diameter), what have people used to secure it? RTV? Make brackets and
clamps? Just leave them free to flop?
>
>
> Steven DeFord
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | Securing Conduit |
I think I got this from Vans.
Small hole in the rib and a wire tie to hold the conduit down.
Rene'
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Justin Jones
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Securing Conduit
-->
I used a small piece of angle riveted to the rib, then used an Adel clamp to
clamp the conduit to the angle.
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:11, Steven DeFord wrote:
>
> -->
>
> When running conduit through lightening holes (generally much bigger than
the conduit diameter), what have people used to secure it? RTV? Make
brackets and clamps? Just leave them free to flop?
>
>
> Steven DeFord
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Securing Conduit |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Try Googling "cable tie bulkhead hole mount"
Specifically it turned up something called a "Panduit LHMS-xnn-xnn". I
used a couple dozen of something very similar to support both conduit
and insulated wire bundles going thru lightening holes. Very handy item
The challenge is finding someone who sells it in small quantities. I
used to use TerminalTown.com but they seem to have closed up shop.
On 11/23/2015 5:11 PM, Steven DeFord wrote:
>
> When running conduit through lightening holes (generally much bigger than the
conduit diameter), what have people used to secure it? RTV? Make brackets and
clamps? Just leave them free to flop?
>
>
> Steven DeFord
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Securing Conduit |
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Just A Few Days Left... |
Dear Listers,
There are just a few days left for this year's List Fund Raiser. If you've been
putting off making a Contribution until the last minute, well, this is it!
The last minute, that is... :-) There are some GREAT new gift selections to choose
from this year. I personally want at least three of them! There's probably
something you can't live without too! And, best of all it supports your
Lists!
Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists
and the *only* means of keeping these Lists running is through your Contributions
during this Fund Raiser. Let's make this a "Black Friday" for the Lists!
Please make a Contribution today!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Heavy Duty Gas Struts |
| From: | Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au> |
I installed my gas struts last night and the doors hold open just fine, however
they slowly descend if you let go from midway open, and that's before any upholstery
is installed.
I have the center cam latch, flush door handle and keyed lock fitted, so there's
some additional weight beyond the standard Vans installation.
Should I just use the standard Vans gas struts until they fail completely or install
the heavier duty gas struts?
The heavier duty Vans gas struts retail for US$131.00, however is there an alternative
source for the heavier duty gas struts at a reduced cost please?
Kind regards to all, progress at last with the fibreglass, woo hoo.
Warm regards
Patrick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Heavy Duty Gas Struts |
I have the stock struts and they have worked just fine for over three year
now with no signs of deterioration. I have the cam latch as well, but the
rest of the door is stock.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Pulis
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 4:26 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Heavy Duty Gas Struts
-->
I installed my gas struts last night and the doors hold open just fine,
however they slowly descend if you let go from midway open, and that's
before any upholstery is installed.
I have the center cam latch, flush door handle and keyed lock fitted, so
there's some additional weight beyond the standard Vans installation.
Should I just use the standard Vans gas struts until they fail completely or
install the heavier duty gas struts?
The heavier duty Vans gas struts retail for US$131.00, however is there an
alternative source for the heavier duty gas struts at a reduced cost please?
Kind regards to all, progress at last with the fibreglass, woo hoo.
Warm regards
Patrick
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Duty Gas Struts |
| From: | Bruce Hoppe <bruce.hoppe(at)yahoo.com> |
I managed to break the plastic clevis on one of the Vans supplied gas struts
. The stroke of the standard gas struts is too long, at least for my plane m
aking them very difficult to install without unbolting the doors.
I bought two replacements from Bansbach.com in Florida with machined aluminu
m clevises, a shorter stroke and 580 newtons force or 130 lbs force, which i
s only 5 lbs lower than Vans heavy duty struts. They are much easier to ins
tall because the stroke matched my open door pin-to-pin gap and a little hig
her force than Vans standard. Plus, the aluminum clevises seem more "aircra
ft-like". Here is what I bought:
- A1 M8 Hinge Eye End Fitting on one end
- A2 M8 Hinge Eye End Fitting on other end
- B0N0F50-100-247/XXXN Gas Spring 4"(100mm) Stroke 10"(247mm) Extended Lengt
h with 580 newton force
Total Cost, including both end fittings was less than $40 each
Bruce Hoppe
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 24, 2015, at 7:22 PM, Carl Froehlich w
rote:
>
net>
>
> I have the stock struts and they have worked just fine for over three year
> now with no signs of deterioration. I have the cam latch as well, but the
> rest of the door is stock.
>
> Carl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Pulis
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 4:26 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Heavy Duty Gas Struts
>
> -->
>
> I installed my gas struts last night and the doors hold open just fine,
> however they slowly descend if you let go from midway open, and that's
> before any upholstery is installed.
>
> I have the center cam latch, flush door handle and keyed lock fitted, so
> there's some additional weight beyond the standard Vans installation.
>
> Should I just use the standard Vans gas struts until they fail completely o
r
> install the heavier duty gas struts?
>
> The heavier duty Vans gas struts retail for US$131.00, however is there an
> alternative source for the heavier duty gas struts at a reduced cost pleas
e?
>
> Kind regards to all, progress at last with the fibreglass, woo hoo.
>
> Warm regards
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Duty Gas Struts |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
I recently bought replacement struts from Bansbach as well. The
original Vans struts still worked but one door started coming down if
the wind hit it wrong. I have a flush latch, aftermarket center cam,
lock, upholstery, etc - not light.
On 3/9/15 I purchased (2) A1A1F50-100-287/600N 10017y1 struts for
$51.89 plus $19.27 S&H.
They installed easily (i.e. throw seemed to exactly fit what was needed
- no compression required.
They now work just right in all respects.
Just another data point.
Bill "on a TG family visitation mission" Watson
On 11/24/2015 9:50 PM, Bruce Hoppe wrote:
> I managed to break the plastic clevis on one of the Vans supplied gas
> struts. The stroke of the standard gas struts is too long, at least
> for my plane making them very difficult to install without unbolting
> the doors.
>
> I bought two replacements from Bansbach.com <http://bansbach.com> in
> Florida with machined aluminum clevises, a shorter stroke and 580
> newtons force or 130 lbs force, which is only 5 lbs lower than Vans
> heavy duty struts. They are much easier to install because the stroke
> matched my open door pin-to-pin gap and a little higher force than
> Vans standard. Plus, the aluminum clevises seem more "aircraft-like".
> Here is what I bought:
> *
> *
> - A1 M8 Hinge Eye End Fitting on one end
> - A2 M8 Hinge Eye End Fitting on other end
> - B0N0F50-100-247/XXXN Gas Spring 4"(100mm) Stroke 10"(247mm) Extended
> Length with 580 newton force
>
> Total Cost, including both end fittings was less than $40 each
>
> Bruce Hoppe
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | What Are You Thankful For...? |
Dear Listers,
Here in the United States, Thursday is our National day of Thanksgiving. Many
of us will be traveling to be with our families and friends to share in generous
feasts of plenty and giving thanks for the many blessings that have been bestowed
upon us.
Many Listers have expressed over the last couple of weeks how thankful they are
for the Email Lists and Forums here on the Matronics servers and for all of the
assistance and comradery they have experienced being a part of the Lists.
One of my favorite comments is when someone writes to me and says something like,
"Its the first thing I do in the morning while I'm having my morning coffee!".
That's a wonderful tribute to the purpose and function of these Lists.
Its always great to hear I'm not the only one that jumps out of bed each morning
to check my List email!!
Won't you take a minute today and show your appreciation for these Lists and for
their continued operation and upgrade?
The List Contribution Site is:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
USA
Thank you in advance for your kind consideration,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Duty Gas Struts |
I appreciate this thread as after 7 years my struts are starting so show
some weakness. I have stock doors with light upholstery, would the
struts mentioned below be too strong?
Thanks,
Marcus
On Nov 25, 2015, at 12:04 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
I recently bought replacement struts from Bansbach as well. The
original Vans struts still worked but one door started coming down if
the wind hit it wrong. I have a flush latch, aftermarket center cam,
lock, upholstery, etc - not light.
On 3/9/15 I purchased (2) A1A1F50-100-287/600N 10017y1 struts for
$51.89 plus $19.27 S&H.
They installed easily (i.e. throw seemed to exactly fit what was needed
- no compression required.
They now work just right in all respects.
Just another data point.
Bill "on a TG family visitation mission" Watson
On 11/24/2015 9:50 PM, Bruce Hoppe wrote:
> I managed to break the plastic clevis on one of the Vans supplied gas
struts. The stroke of the standard gas struts is too long, at least for
my plane making them very difficult to install without unbolting the
doors.
>
> I bought two replacements from Bansbach.com <http://bansbach.com/> in
Florida with machined aluminum clevises, a shorter stroke and 580
newtons force or 130 lbs force, which is only 5 lbs lower than Vans
heavy duty struts. They are much easier to install because the stroke
matched my open door pin-to-pin gap and a little higher force than Vans
standard. Plus, the aluminum clevises seem more "aircraft-like". Here
is what I bought:
>
> - A1 M8 Hinge Eye End Fitting on one end
> - A2 M8 Hinge Eye End Fitting on other end
> - B0N0F50-100-247/XXXN Gas Spring 4"(100mm) Stroke 10"(247mm) Extended
Length with 580 newton force
>
> Total Cost, including both end fittings was less than $40 each
>
> Bruce Hoppe
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Coming Soon! |
Dear Listers,
There's just three more days left in this year's List Fund Raiser and that means
the List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! In December I post
a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists.
Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their
appreciation for the Lists.
Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others
that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists
is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that
keeps these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment
about how the Lists have helped you!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Coming Soon! |
| From: | Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au> |
Hi Matt
I've been remiss in not donating.
Please tell me how I can donate $50 Australian to you via credit card?
Warm regards
Patrick Pulis
Adelaide, South Australia
+61 8 8236 6808
> On 28 Nov 2015, at 05:05, Matt Dralle wrote:
>
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> There's just three more days left in this year's List Fund Raiser and that means
the List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! In December I post
a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists.
Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their
appreciation for the Lists.
>
> Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell
others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists
is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
>
> Matt Dralle / Matronics
> 581 Jeannie Way
> Livermore CA 94550
>
> I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that
keeps these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment
about how the Lists have helped you!
>
> Thank you!
>
> Matt Dralle
> Matronics Email List Administrator
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Fund Raiser - Just Two Days Left! - Still Well Behind... |
Dear Listers,
There are just two more full days left in this year's List Fund Raiser. Over the
last couple of weeks I have received some really nice comments from members
on what the Lists have meant to them and I really appreciate the feedback!
At this point, unfortunately, we are still well behind last year in total Contributions
to support the continued operation of these services. I really want
to keep providing these Lists and Forums to the home built community, but it takes
resources. Since there's no advertising budget or deep pockets to keep the
operation a float, it's *solely your generosity* during the yearly Fund Raiser
that keeps things going. Please make a Contribution today so that I can keep
the bills paid and the services and systems turned on. If you've been putting
off showing your support for the Lists, now is the time to do it!
To make a contribution with a Credit Card or though PayPal at that Matronics Contribution
web site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a check in the mail:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore, CA 94550
USA
Thank you in advance for your support! It is very much appreciated...
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | Stud removal question |
I was removing some studs today. I got them all out but one. Unfortunately,
one broke off about 3/8" to 1/2" from the engine block. The stud is on the oil
filter adapter, it I don't think that's important.
I don't have any experience here. I'm looking for assistance to understand what
options may be available to me. I'm hoping I can find a solution other than
drilling it out.
Thanks,
Bob
Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | B&C Oil Filter Question |
I'm looking to talk with somebody that has installed the B&C oil filter with their
20a alternator on a flying RV-10.
I could barely get the alternator off over the studs. I originally installed
the alternator when the engine was not mounted. Since it requires adding a 3/4"
spacer, I'm trying to figure out the logistics how how to get things back
together with the longer studs to accommodate the added spacer.
Thanks,
Bob
Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stud removal question |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
If you have enough protruding, double nut stud, then back it out. Some
heat likely will help, but don't over do it. If there isn't enough left
for that, there are extractors with left hand threads that will grab and
start turning stud when you tighten them on. If nothing is protruding
you are pretty much left with drilling enough to get an extractor into
the resulting hole.
As to your re-assembly, Rapco makes a crowfoot wrench specifically for
the vacuum pump pad. It is the solution for the most difficult nut.
On 11/28/2015 12:46 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:
>
> I was removing some studs today. I got them all out but one. Unfortunately,
one broke off about 3/8" to 1/2" from the engine block. The stud is on the
oil filter adapter, it I don't think that's important.
>
> I don't have any experience here. I'm looking for assistance to understand
what options may be available to me. I'm hoping I can find a solution other than
drilling it out.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sheldon Olesen <saolesen(at)sirentel.net> |
| Subject: | stud removal question |
Check out this website for a how to on broken stud removal.
diymotofix.com Click on "Blog." The article is on the right side under Categories.
The article is "Fixing Broken Bolts."
Be sure to wish the author a Happy Birthday! I have very good knowledge that he
is 27 today.
Sheldon Olesen
Sent from my iPad
October 15, 2015 - November 29, 2015
RV10-Archive.digest.vol-ks