RV10-Archive.digest.vol-mk

December 02, 2016 - February 02, 2017



      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Built-in Oxygen (Mountain High)
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Dec 02, 2016
Not familiar with the system specifically, but when faced with barbed fittings I dip the ends of the tubing in boiling water and the barbs seem to go in easily. Linn On 12/2/2016 11:35 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > > For those of you who have installed the EDS-4ip system from Mountain High, have any of you found a method to shove the tubing over the barbs fully? > > I've never given birth to a child, personally, but I'm pretty sure this is what it's like. > > Hopefully there is a well-known lubricant out there that won't damage the electronics inside the distribution units. > > Or perhaps you can give me a tip to become more dilated. Either way, something has to give. > > Phil > > > Sent from my iPhone > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Loehle aircraft and airplane paint
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Dec 02, 2016
No data on Loehle ...... I cleaned the aluminum parts with lacquer thinner and then acid etched just prior to painting the primer. I used Sherwin Williams acrylic enamel automotive paint (FPC135W which is their white fleet paint) and the FP410 primer. I did not want to use the two stage base coat/clear coat because I saw what the professionals produced on lots of cars on the road. Linn On 12/2/2016 12:28 PM, Gautier, Thomas N (3262) wrote: > RV-10ers, > > After some years of building and lurking on the list I am ready to > paint my 10. I have been using Loehle Aircraft primers for the > fiberglass parts and I would like to do the same for painting the > metal. However I have been unsuccessful in contacting Loehle Aircraft > by telephone nor e-mail after repeated attempts over the last two > weeks. Does anyone know if something has happened to Loehle Aircraft? > > Also, do you listers have suggestions (of course you do) for a > different, easily usable paint system in case I cant get more Loehle > material? > > Regards, > Nick Gautier > N363TG reserved ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: Low max static RPM
Date: Dec 03, 2016
Hi everyone. I'm wondering if anyone else has experienced what I am. I'm just about ready for first flight in my RV-10 (inspection's done, paperwork's back.. it's legally an airplane now, so just doing some final tidying up (and waiting for a good weather day). I have a Lycoming YIO-540-D4A5 with an MTV-12-B prop and Hartzell S-1-32 governor - pretty much stock Van's recommended equipment, and supplied directly by them. During a static engine runup, I only got to a maximum RPM of 2500... and from what I understand, 2650 is closer to what I should be shooting for. So I adjusted the max RPM adjustment screw on the governor and tried again, but there was no change (and the governor arm does touch the high RPM screw on when set to max RPM) The shop that assembled my MTV-12-B, as well as Hartzell and Van's have all suggested that the low pitch stop may be limiting the static RPM (another suggestion they made was to ensure my tach was reading accurate. I don't have an optical tachometer to check it, though I could buy one if it's worth doing... though since my RPM is monitored through an Advanced Flight Systems sensor that goes on an magneto, it doesn't seem likely to me that there would be a small error... digital as I believe it is, I would suspect it to either work perfectly, or not at all). In any case, has anyone else run into something like this? A friend of mine with a flying RV-10 has mentioned he does get in the neighbourhood of 2650 on his takeoff roll... though his engine produces closer to 300 HP vs my 260 HP, and he has a different governor than I do as well. My reading also wasn't really on a takeoff roll - I was stationary, and though I tried accelerating a bit, never got up to more than maybe 20 knots before I powered back, so perhaps it will increase a bit once I start moving. Density altitude at the time was around minus 500 feet due to temperatures at about -10 degrees C. It's a new engine from Lycoming, so I want to run it as little as possible on the ground, giving it a proper breakin while flying. My thoughts are that 2500 RPM should still be more than adequate for takeoff power on a first flight (cold temperatures here, no significant obstacles, light weight in the airplane, etc.) and then I might tweak either the governor more and/or low pitch stops a bit between subsequent flights to see if I can increase my takeoff RPM a bit. Just wondering - has anybody else run into anything like this, or have any suggestions? Thanks! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Dec 03, 2016
Subject: Re: Low max static RPM
2500 rpm gives plenty of power for flight, so just fly and see what your max rpm is on takeoff. 2575 rpm makes 250HP, so you'll be fine. Enjoy! Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 3, 2016, at 2:15 AM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > > Hi everyone. I'm wondering if anyone else has experienced what I am. > > I'm just about ready for first flight in my RV-10 (inspection's done, paperwork's back.. it's legally an airplane now, so just doing some final tidying up (and waiting for a good weather day). > > I have a Lycoming YIO-540-D4A5 with an MTV-12-B prop and Hartzell S-1-32 governor - pretty much stock Van's recommended equipment, and supplied directly by them. During a static engine runup, I only got to a maximum RPM of 2500... and from what I understand, 2650 is closer to what I should be shooting for. So I adjusted the max RPM adjustment screw on the governor and tried again, but there was no change (and the governor arm does touch the high RPM screw on when set to max RPM) > > The shop that assembled my MTV-12-B, as well as Hartzell and Van's have all suggested that the low pitch stop may be limiting the static RPM (another suggestion they made was to ensure my tach was reading accurate. I don't have an optical tachometer to check it, though I could buy one if it's worth doing... though since my RPM is monitored through an Advanced Flight Systems sensor that goes on an magneto, it doesn't seem likely to me that there would be a small error... digital as I believe it is, I would suspect it to either work perfectly, or not at all). > > In any case, has anyone else run into something like this? A friend of mine with a flying RV-10 has mentioned he does get in the neighbourhood of 2650 on his takeoff roll... though his engine produces closer to 300 HP vs my 260 HP, and he has a different governor than I do as well. My reading also wasn't really on a takeoff roll - I was stationary, and though I tried accelerating a bit, never got up to more than maybe 20 knots before I powered back, so perhaps it will increase a bit once I start moving. Density altitude at the time was around minus 500 feet due to temperatures at about -10 degrees C. > > It's a new engine from Lycoming, so I want to run it as little as possible on the ground, giving it a proper breakin while flying. My thoughts are that 2500 RPM should still be more than adequate for takeoff power on a first flight (cold temperatures here, no significant obstacles, light weight in the airplane, etc.) and then I might tweak either the governor more and/or low pitch stops a bit between subsequent flights to see if I can increase my takeoff RPM a bit. > > Just wondering - has anybody else run into anything like this, or have any suggestions? > > Thanks! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Low max static RPM
Date: Dec 03, 2016
I would agree. It should fly fine. Don't try to do too much with it on the ground just yet until you see how it is in flight. But, once you get it flyIng, you should have many opportunities for in cowling it and adjusting things. Then you can tweak it without worrying about hurting your fresh engine. Tim > On Dec 3, 2016, at 7:21 AM, Jesse Saint wrote: > > > 2500 rpm gives plenty of power for flight, so just fly and see what your max rpm is on takeoff. 2575 rpm makes 250HP, so you'll be fine. > > Enjoy! > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > C: 352-427-0285 > F: 815-377-3694 > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 3, 2016, at 2:15 AM, Dan Charrois wrote: >> >> >> Hi everyone. I'm wondering if anyone else has experienced what I am. >> >> I'm just about ready for first flight in my RV-10 (inspection's done, paperwork's back.. it's legally an airplane now, so just doing some final tidying up (and waiting for a good weather day). >> >> I have a Lycoming YIO-540-D4A5 with an MTV-12-B prop and Hartzell S-1-32 governor - pretty much stock Van's recommended equipment, and supplied directly by them. During a static engine runup, I only got to a maximum RPM of 2500... and from what I understand, 2650 is closer to what I should be shooting for. So I adjusted the max RPM adjustment screw on the governor and tried again, but there was no change (and the governor arm does touch the high RPM screw on when set to max RPM) >> >> The shop that assembled my MTV-12-B, as well as Hartzell and Van's have all suggested that the low pitch stop may be limiting the static RPM (another suggestion they made was to ensure my tach was reading accurate. I don't have an optical tachometer to check it, though I could buy one if it's worth doing... though since my RPM is monitored through an Advanced Flight Systems sensor that goes on an magneto, it doesn't seem likely to me that there would be a small error... digital as I believe it is, I would suspect it to either work perfectly, or not at all). >> >> In any case, has anyone else run into something like this? A friend of mine with a flying RV-10 has mentioned he does get in the neighbourhood of 2650 on his takeoff roll... though his engine produces closer to 300 HP vs my 260 HP, and he has a different governor than I do as well. My reading also wasn't really on a takeoff roll - I was stationary, and though I tried accelerating a bit, never got up to more than maybe 20 knots before I powered back, so perhaps it will increase a bit once I start moving. Density altitude at the time was around minus 500 feet due to temperatures at about -10 degrees C. >> >> It's a new engine from Lycoming, so I want to run it as little as possible on the ground, giving it a proper breakin while flying. My thoughts are that 2500 RPM should still be more than adequate for takeoff power on a first flight (cold temperatures here, no significant obstacles, light weight in the airplane, etc.) and then I might tweak either the governor more and/or low pitch stops a bit between subsequent flights to see if I can increase my takeoff RPM a bit. >> >> Just wondering - has anybody else run into anything like this, or have any suggestions? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Dan >> --- >> Dan Charrois >> President, Syzygy Research & Technology >> Phone: 780-961-2213 >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 03, 2016
Subject: Re: Low max static RPM
Right now I would not concern yourself too much about static rpm. A stock IO-540 in certified condition, i.e. stock compression of 8.5 to 1 is rated at 250 hp at 2575 rpm (as installed in the Piper Aztec). My main concern at -10 C would be getting the oil warm enough. I would want at least 100-120 F for take-off on first flight. I would want CHT above about 225 F. At a below sea level DA your engine will make more power, and you will have noticeably more lift. For a solo first flight, or even with the additional pilot program (highly recommended) your initial take off weight will be between 2200 and 2300 lbs. More than enough power at those weights. Even bringing the power up slowly, with flaps at 0 degrees, your plane will want to fly within 1000-1500 ft ground roll and will climb quite rapidly. I don't recommend using flaps 15 for first flight...you will overspeed them, just because you will be behind the airplane a bit on that first takeoff. The engine will be quite happy with 2500-2600 rpm, and you won't need to be concerned about dialing the rpm back until you reach your break-in altitude. For noise and comfort, 3500 MSL with 24" and 2400 works pretty well to get 75% give or take a couple percent. At least with your OAT you won't have CHT or oil temp problems to worry about. Once you have a few hours on the engine, it will rev a little freer and you will be able to see what your prop governor will allow at flying speeds. I have your prop, MT governor (with the SB for flyweight assy applied) and I had to watch to prevent overspeed until I sent the governor in for the SB and had them adjust the governor redline down 30 rpm. I have Dynon Skyview which uses connection through resistors to both P-leads for rpm sensing. Because my first flight was at something above 30 C and all of Phase I was hotter temps, and I was fighting high CHT I did a lot of takeoffs at 85% power, reducing to 65% pretty quickly after reaching pattern altitude. I likely will add some more cooling before next summer. Kelly -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > Hi everyone. I'm wondering if anyone else has experienced what I am. > > I'm just about ready for first flight in my RV-10 (inspection's done, > paperwork's back.. it's legally an airplane now, so just doing some final > tidying up (and waiting for a good weather day). > > I have a Lycoming YIO-540-D4A5 with an MTV-12-B prop and Hartzell S-1-32 > governor - pretty much stock Van's recommended equipment, and supplied > directly by them. During a static engine runup, I only got to a maximum > RPM of 2500... and from what I understand, 2650 is closer to what I should > be shooting for. So I adjusted the max RPM adjustment screw on the > governor and tried again, but there was no change (and the governor arm > does touch the high RPM screw on when set to max RPM) > > The shop that assembled my MTV-12-B, as well as Hartzell and Van's have > all suggested that the low pitch stop may be limiting the static RPM > (another suggestion they made was to ensure my tach was reading accurate. > I don't have an optical tachometer to check it, though I could buy one if > it's worth doing... though since my RPM is monitored through an Advanced > Flight Systems sensor that goes on an magneto, it doesn't seem likely to me > that there would be a small error... digital as I believe it is, I would > suspect it to either work perfectly, or not at all). > > In any case, has anyone else run into something like this? A friend of > mine with a flying RV-10 has mentioned he does get in the neighbourhood of > 2650 on his takeoff roll... though his engine produces closer to 300 HP vs > my 260 HP, and he has a different governor than I do as well. My reading > also wasn't really on a takeoff roll - I was stationary, and though I tried > accelerating a bit, never got up to more than maybe 20 knots before I > powered back, so perhaps it will increase a bit once I start moving. > Density altitude at the time was around minus 500 feet due to temperatures > at about -10 degrees C. > > It's a new engine from Lycoming, so I want to run it as little as possible > on the ground, giving it a proper breakin while flying. My thoughts are > that 2500 RPM should still be more than adequate for takeoff power on a > first flight (cold temperatures here, no significant obstacles, light > weight in the airplane, etc.) and then I might tweak either the governor > more and/or low pitch stops a bit between subsequent flights to see if I > can increase my takeoff RPM a bit. > > Just wondering - has anybody else run into anything like this, or have any > suggestions? > > Thanks! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 03, 2016
Subject: Nuts and Bolts
This is worth watching... Lots of education and lab demonstrations packed i nto 5 minute. https://youtu.be/IKwWu2w1gGk Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 03, 2016
Subject: Re: Nuts and Bolts
Outstanding video. Van's has gone to Nordlock on the RV-12 Sensenich prop bolts. John C. John Cox On Dec 3, 2016 06:27, "Phillip Perry" wrote: > This is worth watching... Lots of education and lab demonstrations > packed into 5 minute. > > https://youtu.be/IKwWu2w1gGk > > > Sent from my iPhone > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nuts and Bolts
From: "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com>
Date: Dec 03, 2016
Great video! Matco uses these Nordlock washers on the brake calipers of the RV-10 wheel & brake setup. It's disturbing to see how easy those nylon locknuts are coming off. All my flight controls use helicopter nuts, castellated + nylock in one. MS17825 -3 and -4. I've seen someone here mention using those a couple of days ago. I'm glad i'm not the only "nut nut" around here. :D -------- Lenny N311LZ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=463651#463651 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 03, 2016
Subject: Re: Loehle aircraft and airplane paint
I placed an order with Sandy at Loehle back in September. I received everything but my Wonderfill, it was marked as backordered. I tried contacting them in October and November to find out where my order was, and never could get in touch with anyone. My gut tells me they have just quietly shut the doors, and not notified their customers. I have used their product to completely prep and prime the plane. I am not to happy with it, as it orange peeled pretty much the entire project. It is going to require some elbow grease to smooth things out before I paint. But I want to finish the plane and get in the air for a year or so before I paint, in case I want to do any post-build modifications. I am not sure what you are needing at this point, but I found a good replacement for Wonderfill was Dolphin Glaze. Takes a little more sanding, but fills the pinholes, scratches, and imperfections a little easier than bondo. Here is what I used to finish things up, my local paint supplier carries it for around $10. I have played with some paint, I decided to go with what Vans uses; Valspar 852 Polyurethane. This is a fantastic product, and looks great, see the metallic blue on my pants and spinner. When I finally decide to paint the whole plane, this is what I will be going with. Attaching an image of what things look like right now. Good luck! Vernon [image: Inline image 1] On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Linn Walters wrote : > > No data on Loehle ...... > I cleaned the aluminum parts with lacquer thinner and then acid etched > just prior to painting the primer. I used Sherwin Williams acrylic ename l > automotive paint (FPC135W which is their white fleet paint) and the FP410 > primer. I did not want to use the two stage base coat/clear coat because I > saw what the professionals produced on lots of cars on the road. > Linn > > On 12/2/2016 12:28 PM, Gautier, Thomas N (3262) wrote: > >> RV-10ers, >> >> After some years of building and lurking on the list I am ready to >> paint my =9910. I have been using Loehle Aircraft primers for the fiberglass >> parts and I would like to do the same for painting the metal. However I >> have been unsuccessful in contacting Loehle Aircraft by telephone nor >> e-mail after repeated attempts over the last two weeks. Does anyone know if >> something has happened to Loehle Aircraft? >> >> Also, do you listers have suggestions (of course you do) for a >> different, easily usable paint system in case I can=99t get more L oehle >> material? >> >> Regards, >> Nick Gautier >> N363TG reserved >> > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > -- Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Doc <docclv(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Max RPM on D4A5 Lycoming
Date: Dec 03, 2016
Carlos: You are right. The D4A5 is rated at 260hp at 2750rpm. I had the same problem with the engine reving to only 2500 rpm with the initial Hartzel governor Van's sent. We tried adjusting the stop on the governor, etc. to no avail. I finally checked what governor was recommended for a Hartzel prop (in our case) and found out Van's sent the wrong governor! Make sure you have a S-1-32 governor. Doc N123CV #41087 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 03, 2016
Subject: Re: Max RPM on D4A5 Lycoming
Actually the redline is 2700, NOT 2750. The last 125 rpm only get you from 250 to 260 hp. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Doc wrote: > > Carlos: You are right. The D4A5 is rated at 260hp at 2750rpm. I had the > same problem with the engine reving to only 2500 rpm with the initial > Hartzel governor Van's sent. We tried adjusting the stop on the governor, > etc. to no avail. I finally checked what governor was recommended for a > Hartzel prop (in our case) and found out Van's sent the wrong governor! > Make sure you have a S-1-32 governor. Doc N123CV #41087 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Loehle aircraft and airplane paint
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2016
I used Loehle's fiberglass filler and liked it. Used different products for the rest of the paint job. Slightly OT but consider this; There are lot's of very good aircraft and non-aircraft coating systems out there with many different characteristics. Whatever you choose, try to find a local distributor that you can buy through, but more important, one that can support you through the paint process. I found that a Dupont distributor that was within driving distance was invaluable. I also befriended a neighbor who owned a truck paint shop. Neither knew beans about aircraft but they did know paint - which was the perfect complement for this first time painter. Sometimes I drove there more than once a day. I found learning to paint an iterative process that benefited from some local support. If lucky, you can use their curiosity about your project to get them to teach you a bit about their industry. (After some post-build fiberglass work where I used Prestec's polyester filler, I'm thinking I should have used that for most of my fill work - *has anyone else used Prestec on the '10? *The stuff is a quantum improvement over everything else I've used in terms of ease of use and effectiveness but don't know if suitable for the '10 top.) Happy Finishing! On 12/2/2016 12:28 PM, Gautier, Thomas N (3262) wrote: > RV-10ers, > > After some years of building and lurking on the list I am ready to > paint my 10. I have been using Loehle Aircraft primers for the > fiberglass parts and I would like to do the same for painting the > metal. However I have been unsuccessful in contacting Loehle Aircraft > by telephone nor e-mail after repeated attempts over the last two > weeks. Does anyone know if something has happened to Loehle Aircraft? > > Also, do you listers have suggestions (of course you do) for a > different, easily usable paint system in case I cant get more Loehle > material? > > Regards, > Nick Gautier > N363TG reserved --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Max RPM on D4A5 Lycoming
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2016
Yes, 2700. I have the stock setup as well. I can't be specific here but my very experienced and totally 'anal' Tech Counselor, who I have immense respect for, identified an issue with the throttle assembly during prep for the first starts and flight. He considered it important enough to insist that we drill a new hole in the throttle arm so that the throw was adequate (I was not happy with such a mod to the stock Vans setup but he insisted). I thought it was a low RPM issue but I know that a new hole in the arm would change the entire range - that's as much as I can say with any actual understanding. It performed perfectly after that slight mod - low idle to 2700 though I recall making a small adjustment at the governor. While I have to assume it was something specific to my build - it was all stock from my perspective. So, the stock setup is not dead nuts perfect. Background - my TC inspected my work annually or as requested and seemed to be satisfied enough with this first time builder's efforts to leave me alone. He NEVER put hands on or insisted on changes EXCEPT for the stock throttle linkage. I never completely understood the problem but he insisted and I knew enough to follow. He drilled the hole. Bill "hope that helps a bit" Watson On 12/3/2016 5:58 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > Actually the redline is 2700, NOT 2750. The last 125 rpm only get you > from 250 to 260 hp. > > -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm > > On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Doc > wrote: > > > > > Carlos: You are right. The D4A5 is rated at 260hp at 2750rpm. I > had the same problem with the engine reving to only 2500 rpm with > the initial Hartzel governor Van's sent. We tried adjusting the > stop on the governor, etc. to no avail. I finally checked what > governor was recommended for a Hartzel prop (in our case) and > found out Van's sent the wrong governor! Make sure you have a > S-1-32 governor. Doc N123CV #41087 > =================================== > br> fts!) > r> > /www.aeroelectric.com" rel="noreferrer" > target="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com > w.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer" > target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com > p.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com > e.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com > " rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.mrrace.com > rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > =================================== > -List" rel="noreferrer" > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > =================================== > FORUMS - > eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com > =================================== > WIKI - > errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com > =================================== > b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > =================================== > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Hole deburring tool
From: "whodja" <whodja(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2016
I had a very small deburring tool. I'm looking for a source to by another one. I've checked the usual sites. Unfortunately I think it came with tools I bought from a builder years ago. It was very short and great for small spaces. Any recommendations are greatly appreciated. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=463669#463669 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Loehle aircraft and airplane paint
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2016
Bill has good advice .... I went with Sherwin Williams because there was a local automotive paint store. I could take a piece that I'd painted and wasn't happy with the results to the store and received advice that helped improve my painting. I also had to deviate from the info sheets to really thin the paint to get a much better flow. Friends that painted cars helped also. I had a Harbor Freight paint gun that I was spraying everything with. It was suggested to use one gun for primer and another for color. Big improvement. $125 Astro paint gun was well worth the money. As for the fiberglass ..... all the FG parts were garbage. Just fixing the parts should qualify for the 50% rule. I used UV smoothprime from PolyFiber on all the FG parts .... spruce carries it. My 'painting' steps were grinding/sanding, smoothprime, sanding, (sometimes multiple coats), Sherwin Williams primer and then color top coat. Just like riveting, the more I painted the better the results. Linn On 12/4/2016 9:25 AM, Bill Watson wrote: > I used Loehle's fiberglass filler and liked it. Used different > products for the rest of the paint job. > > Slightly OT but consider this; There are lot's of very good aircraft > and non-aircraft coating systems out there with many different > characteristics. Whatever you choose, try to find a local distributor > that you can buy through, but more important, one that can support you > through the paint process. I found that a Dupont distributor that was > within driving distance was invaluable. I also befriended a neighbor > who owned a truck paint shop. Neither knew beans about aircraft but > they did know paint - which was the perfect complement for this first > time painter. Sometimes I drove there more than once a day. I found > learning to paint an iterative process that benefited from some local > support. If lucky, you can use their curiosity about your project to > get them to teach you a bit about their industry. > > (After some post-build fiberglass work where I used Prestec's > polyester filler, I'm thinking I should have used that for most of my > fill work - *has anyone else used Prestec on the '10? *The stuff is a > quantum improvement over everything else I've used in terms of ease of > use and effectiveness but don't know if suitable for the '10 top.) > > Happy Finishing! > > On 12/2/2016 12:28 PM, Gautier, Thomas N (3262) wrote: >> RV-10ers, >> >> After some years of building and lurking on the list I am ready >> to paint my 10. I have been using Loehle Aircraft primers for the >> fiberglass parts and I would like to do the same for painting the >> metal. However I have been unsuccessful in contacting Loehle Aircraft >> by telephone nor e-mail after repeated attempts over the last two >> weeks. Does anyone know if something has happened to Loehle Aircraft? >> >> Also, do you listers have suggestions (of course you do) for a >> different, easily usable paint system in case I cant get more Loehle >> material? >> >> Regards, >> Nick Gautier >> N363TG reserved > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Avast logo > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Grease guns
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2016
Just closing the loop on this grease gun thread... A couple days ago I received my Lincoln 1134 Heavy Duty Grease Gun. It seems to be well made, with a nicer plunger than my old one...not extremely better, but a little nicer. Otherwise, it really isn't a big change from my old gun. Today I tried to load my Aeroshell 6 into it and nope, it didn't work either. Even after purging the air out of it. So I got irritated and grabbed a brand new tube of Aeroshell 6 even though mine was not even half used. Right away I could tell that this grease was not as thick as my old grease. It was vastly different, and much more "oily" if that makes sense. I cleaned out the old Aeroshell 6 that I tried to load in the gun and stuck in the fresh tube. That stuff pumped out ok after purging out the air. So, I probably didn't need to spend $35 on a new gun...my old one would have worked just fine. I just had crappy grease. Now I feel a bit bad that I just shot 6 pumps into each side of my RV-10 prop on that old grease. Oh well, hopefully it'll work its way around and still be OK. Maybe after a few hours I'll throw a couple more pumps in of the new stuff. For my old gun, I cleaned it out and loaded up a fresh tube of the grease that I'm using for wheel bearings and nose swivel. There really aren't too many other places on the plane that need grease, other than the nose gear hinge points. I'll probably put pictures on my website some day of the guns, but, right now that's back burner for me. I don't know if Aeroshell 6 goes bad over time, but I'd encourage you all to make sure that if your gun doesn't pump it anymore, you just get a fresh tube. I'm not too happy I even tried to use that old stuff now. Tim On 11/28/2016 10:12 PM, Tim Lewis wrote: > > Tim, > > I fought the same problem for years - couldn't reliably burp all the air > out of the gun, so it would stop pumping. > > Then somebody showed me that it is possible (at least on my gun, I > understand this is a common feature) to turn the plunger handle to just > the right location so it will engage with the grease puck, allowing the > operator to push on the end of the plunger handle and apply extra force > to the grease column. Then you can operate the lever (or use the air > burp fitting, if so equipped) to get a nice air-free column of grease > flowing. > > In practice: rotate the plunger handle a little, push on it, see if > there is resistance. If not, turn more and try again. Repeat until the > plunger handle is locked to the grease puck. > > Tim > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Belue <kdb.rv10(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2016
Subject: Re: Grease guns
When I leave Aeroshell grease in the gun, the spring pressure causes the oil to run out of the grease, making it drier. Now I always take the handle that keeps pressure against the grease and pull it back and lock it so it takes the pressure off the grease. This helps keep the oil in it so it doesn't dry out and get thicker. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 4, 2016, at 6:05 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > Just closing the loop on this grease gun thread... > > A couple days ago I received my Lincoln 1134 Heavy Duty Grease > Gun. It seems to be well made, with a nicer plunger than my > old one...not extremely better, but a little nicer. Otherwise, > it really isn't a big change from my old gun. Today I tried to > load my Aeroshell 6 into it and nope, it didn't work either. > Even after purging the air out of it. > > So I got irritated and grabbed a brand new tube of Aeroshell 6 > even though mine was not even half used. Right away I could > tell that this grease was not as thick as my old grease. It was > vastly different, and much more "oily" if that makes sense. > I cleaned out the old Aeroshell 6 that I tried to load in the > gun and stuck in the fresh tube. That stuff pumped out ok > after purging out the air. So, I probably didn't need to > spend $35 on a new gun...my old one would have worked just > fine. I just had crappy grease. Now I feel a bit bad that > I just shot 6 pumps into each side of my RV-10 prop on that > old grease. Oh well, hopefully it'll work its way around and > still be OK. Maybe after a few hours I'll throw a couple > more pumps in of the new stuff. > > For my old gun, I cleaned it out and loaded up a fresh > tube of the grease that I'm using for wheel bearings and > nose swivel. There really aren't too many other places on > the plane that need grease, other than the nose gear > hinge points. > > I'll probably put pictures on my website some day of > the guns, but, right now that's back burner for me. > > I don't know if Aeroshell 6 goes bad over time, but I'd > encourage you all to make sure that if your gun doesn't > pump it anymore, you just get a fresh tube. I'm not too > happy I even tried to use that old stuff now. > > Tim > > >> On 11/28/2016 10:12 PM, Tim Lewis wrote: >> >> Tim, >> >> I fought the same problem for years - couldn't reliably burp all the air >> out of the gun, so it would stop pumping. >> >> Then somebody showed me that it is possible (at least on my gun, I >> understand this is a common feature) to turn the plunger handle to just >> the right location so it will engage with the grease puck, allowing the >> operator to push on the end of the plunger handle and apply extra force >> to the grease column. Then you can operate the lever (or use the air >> burp fitting, if so equipped) to get a nice air-free column of grease >> flowing. >> >> In practice: rotate the plunger handle a little, push on it, see if >> there is resistance. If not, turn more and try again. Repeat until the >> plunger handle is locked to the grease puck. >> >> Tim >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Date: Dec 05, 2016
Subject: Filtered Air Box options
In the Van's manual, there are 2 things that are optional : - the FAB box drain tube, and - the Filter Bypass door Can you please tell if you chose, or not, to install both or any of these options, and the reasons why? Regards Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gautier, Thomas N (3262)" <thomas.n.gautier(at)jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Loehle aircraft and airplane paint
Date: Dec 05, 2016
Vernon and Linn, Thanks for the info. I am looking around at alternate paint systems, tho ugh I was happy with the results I got with Loehle on my fiberglass. John Miller (thanks, John) offered to look in on Loehle to see what=92s up. So perhaps we will know the whole story soon. Nick Gautier N363TG reserved On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Vernon Franklin > wrote From: Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com<mailto:vernon.franklin(at)gma il.com>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Loehle aircraft and airplane paint I placed an order with Sandy at Loehle back in September. I received everything but my Wonderfill, it was marked as backordered. I tried contacting them in October and November to find out where my order was, and never could get in touch with anyone. My gut tells me they have just quietly shut the doors, and not notified their customers. I have used their product to completely prep and prime the plane. I am not to happy with it, as it orange peeled pretty much the entire project. It is going to require some elbow grease to smooth things out before I paint. But I want to finish the plane and get in the air for a year or so before I paint, in case I want to do any post-build modifications. I am not sure what you are needing at this point, but I found a good replacement for Wonderfill was Dolphin Glaze. Takes a little more sanding, but fills the pinholes, scratches, and imperfections a little easier than bondo. Here is what I used to finish things up, my local paint supplier carries it for around $10. I have played with some paint, I decided to go with what Vans uses; Valspar 852 Polyurethane. This is a fantastic product, and looks great, see the metallic blue on my pants and spinner. When I finally decide to paint the whole plane, this is what I will be going with. Attaching an image of what things look like right now. Good luck! Vernon [image: Inline image 1] On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Linn Walters > wrote : No data on Loehle ...... I cleaned the aluminum parts with lacquer thinner and then acid etched just prior to painting the primer. I used Sherwin Williams acrylic ename l automotive paint (FPC135W which is their white fleet paint) and the FP410 primer. I did not want to use the two stage base coat/clear coat because I saw what the professionals produced on lots of cars on the road. Linn On 12/2/2016 12:28 PM, Gautier, Thomas N (3262) wrote: RV-10ers, After some years of building and lurking on the list I am ready to paint my =9910. I have been using Loehle Aircraft primers for the fiberglass parts and I would like to do the same for painting the metal. However I have been unsuccessful in contacting Loehle Aircraft by telephone nor e-mail after repeated attempts over the last two weeks. Does anyone know if something has happened to Loehle Aircraft? Also, do you listers have suggestions (of course you do) for a different, easily usable paint system in case I can=99t get more L oehle material? Regards, Nick Gautier N363TG reserved ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Date: Dec 04, 2016
Subject: Re: Filtered Air Box options
Bypass door - yes. I view this as required. I have red handle pull cable on the panel to open the door. Assume the door will not go all the way shut if you push the handle back in so if you pull it, reset is on the ground. Drain tube - no. While at annual I might find some fuel residue in the bottom of the air box I do not believe there is enough fuel dripping down into the filter to warrant a drain tube. Carl > On Dec 4, 2016, at 7:30 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > > In the Van's manual, there are 2 things that are optional : > - the FAB box drain tube, and > - the Filter Bypass door > > Can you please tell if you chose, or not, to install both or any of these options, and the reasons why? > > Regards > Carlos > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Grease guns
Date: Dec 04, 2016
Awesome tip! Thanks! Tim > On Dec 4, 2016, at 6:32 PM, Kevin Belue wrote: > > > When I leave Aeroshell grease in the gun, the spring pressure causes the oil to run out of the grease, making it drier. Now I always take the handle that keeps pressure against the grease and pull it back and lock it so it takes the pressure off the grease. This helps keep the oil in it so it doesn't dry out and get thicker. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 4, 2016, at 6:05 PM, Tim Olson wrote: >> >> >> Just closing the loop on this grease gun thread... >> >> A couple days ago I received my Lincoln 1134 Heavy Duty Grease >> Gun. It seems to be well made, with a nicer plunger than my >> old one...not extremely better, but a little nicer. Otherwise, >> it really isn't a big change from my old gun. Today I tried to >> load my Aeroshell 6 into it and nope, it didn't work either. >> Even after purging the air out of it. >> >> So I got irritated and grabbed a brand new tube of Aeroshell 6 >> even though mine was not even half used. Right away I could >> tell that this grease was not as thick as my old grease. It was >> vastly different, and much more "oily" if that makes sense. >> I cleaned out the old Aeroshell 6 that I tried to load in the >> gun and stuck in the fresh tube. That stuff pumped out ok >> after purging out the air. So, I probably didn't need to >> spend $35 on a new gun...my old one would have worked just >> fine. I just had crappy grease. Now I feel a bit bad that >> I just shot 6 pumps into each side of my RV-10 prop on that >> old grease. Oh well, hopefully it'll work its way around and >> still be OK. Maybe after a few hours I'll throw a couple >> more pumps in of the new stuff. >> >> For my old gun, I cleaned it out and loaded up a fresh >> tube of the grease that I'm using for wheel bearings and >> nose swivel. There really aren't too many other places on >> the plane that need grease, other than the nose gear >> hinge points. >> >> I'll probably put pictures on my website some day of >> the guns, but, right now that's back burner for me. >> >> I don't know if Aeroshell 6 goes bad over time, but I'd >> encourage you all to make sure that if your gun doesn't >> pump it anymore, you just get a fresh tube. I'm not too >> happy I even tried to use that old stuff now. >> >> Tim >> >> >>> On 11/28/2016 10:12 PM, Tim Lewis wrote: >>> >>> Tim, >>> >>> I fought the same problem for years - couldn't reliably burp all the air >>> out of the gun, so it would stop pumping. >>> >>> Then somebody showed me that it is possible (at least on my gun, I >>> understand this is a common feature) to turn the plunger handle to just >>> the right location so it will engage with the grease puck, allowing the >>> operator to push on the end of the plunger handle and apply extra force >>> to the grease column. Then you can operate the lever (or use the air >>> burp fitting, if so equipped) to get a nice air-free column of grease >>> flowing. >>> >>> In practice: rotate the plunger handle a little, push on it, see if >>> there is resistance. If not, turn more and try again. Repeat until the >>> plunger handle is locked to the grease puck. >>> >>> Tim > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2016
Subject: Re: Filtered Air Box options
I would certainly not consider the filter bypass door as optional. The alternate air door would be optional in my book, but not the filter bypass. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad > On Dec 4, 2016, at 7:30 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > > In the Van's manual, there are 2 things that are optional : > - the FAB box drain tube, and > - the Filter Bypass door > > Can you please tell if you chose, or not, to install both or any of these options, and the reasons why? > > Regards > Carlos > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2016
Subject: Re: Filtered Air Box options
Yes Yes Alternate source of induction is always a welcome option should it be needed. Fuel drain was no big deal to add, so I can't hurt to let it out. The Alt air door was the most difficult to install but it's not bad either. I'd just be certain that you know your cable route to it so can optimize your pivot point location. I'd also consider pro-sealing an aluminum rub plate in the bottom of the box between the rubber filter edge and fiberglass. I've seen too many filters rub right through the glass. We had a 7A the other day that rubbed all the way through on about 80% of the circumference of the filter. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 4, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > > In the Van's manual, there are 2 things that are optional : > - the FAB box drain tube, and > - the Filter Bypass door > > Can you please tell if you chose, or not, to install both or any of these options, and the reasons why? > > Regards > Carlos > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2016
Subject: Re: Filtered Air Box options
> On Dec 4, 2016, at 8:33 PM, Phillip Perry wrote: > > I'd also consider pro-sealing an aluminum rub plate in the bottom of the b ox between the rubber filter edge and fiberglass. If you don't do this in the beginning, you eventually will need to. However, I use some RTV and Pop rivets to hold it on place (rivets outside the filte r), and the filter bypass door also attaches to the plate inside the filter. > > I've seen too many filters rub right through the glass. We had a 7A the o ther day that rubbed all the way through on about 80% of the circumference o f the filter. I have seen this on numerous occasions as well. I think the worse I've seen w as about 80% of the way around as well, filter almost falling out. We had to add the plate and glass the outside both to fix it. It really is quite easy to add. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Miller <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Filtered Air Box options
Date: Dec 04, 2016
A drain hole is needed, whether or not you use a tube. Otherwise you will have fuel pooled in there with no way to drain out from either overpriming or trying to start a hot engine. grumpy > On Dec 4, 2016, at 6:53 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > > > Bypass door - yes. I view this as required. I have red handle pull cable on the panel to open the door. Assume the door will not go all the way shut if you push the handle back in so if you pull it, reset is on the ground. > > Drain tube - no. While at annual I might find some fuel residue in the bottom of the air box I do not believe there is enough fuel dripping down into the filter to warrant a drain tube. > > Carl > >> On Dec 4, 2016, at 7:30 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: >> >> >> In the Van's manual, there are 2 things that are optional : >> - the FAB box drain tube, and >> - the Filter Bypass door >> >> Can you please tell if you chose, or not, to install both or any of these options, and the reasons why? >> >> Regards >> Carlos >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Date: Dec 04, 2016
Subject: Re: Filtered Air Box options
Like Jesse said - don't even think about using the Van's air box without a p iece of 0.032" or so aluminum in the bottom that extends to the edge of the f ilter. While you are at it, add four pieced of light aluminum angle (0.025 ") to the plate to hold the air filter shape. Bend the aluminum to conform t o the inside of the filter. Engine vibration tends to change cylindrical fi lter to conical - and in the process the filter tends to loose the seal with the top of the air box. I did this on an 8a and a 10 and have no further p roblems. I sent a note to Van's recommending they add the aluminum plate to the air b ox kit. They agreed with customers adding the plate, but had no response on modifying the kit. Carl > On Dec 4, 2016, at 9:22 PM, Jesse Saint wrote: > >> On Dec 4, 2016, at 8:33 PM, Phillip Perry wrote: >> >> I'd also consider pro-sealing an aluminum rub plate in the bottom of the b ox between the rubber filter edge and fiberglass. > If you don't do this in the beginning, you eventually will need to. Howeve r, I use some RTV and Pop rivets to hold it on place (rivets outside the fil ter), and the filter bypass door also attaches to the plate inside the filte r. >> >> I've seen too many filters rub right through the glass. We had a 7A the other day that rubbed all the way through on about 80% of the circumference of the filter. > I have seen this on numerous occasions as well. I think the worse I've see n was about 80% of the way around as well, filter almost falling out. We had to add the plate and glass the outside both to fix it. It really is quite e asy to add. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > 352-427-0285 > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > > Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: Re: Filtered Air Box options
Date: Dec 04, 2016
> On 2016-Dec-04, at 5:30 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > > In the Van's manual, there are 2 things that are optional : > - the FAB box drain tube, and > - the Filter Bypass door I put in both myself, but with the filter bypass door in place, I can't imagine how the drain tube would ever get used. Any fuel that ends up at the bottom of the FAB box is just going to leak around the edges of the bypass door, since it's hardly hermetically sealed. Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Filtered Air Box options
From: "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2016
I saw an RV-10 once that had an induction fire after a botched hot start. It didn't look pretty. He didn't have the drain tube but installed one after that. Lenny trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt wrote: > In the Van's manual, there are 2 things that are optional : > - the FAB box drain tube, and > - the Filter Bypass door > > Can you please tell if you chose, or not, to install both or any of these options, and the reasons why? > > Regards > Carlos Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=463714#463714 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Carr <junk(at)dcarr.org>
Date: Dec 05, 2016
Subject: Anything to delete from baffle kit?
I don't see an inventory listed for the -10 baffle kit---curious if you wished you'd removed or added anything when you ordered it. Thanks, David ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2016
Subject: Re: Filtered Air Box options
I have studied the question quite a bit. Quite frankly I think the bypass door is a bad design and doesn't accomplish what it should. There is no need to bypass a round filter. Given that the air filter is an automotive round design, the physics argue against it ever getting blocked by impact icing or any other type like snow, frost, dust, you name it. Nothing but vapor can make the 180 degree turn to hit the backside of the filter. On the other hand there is some small risk that snow or ice could block the air intake from the outside. That could be addressed by installing the carb heat fitting at the front of the snorkel that is designed for carbureted engines. Whether you hooked it up to heat or not, it would provide intake air in the unlikely event that the inlet was blocked, and would be able to be openned and closed. And you would always have filtered air. I did install the drain, because I didn't do the bypass door. I'm still thinking about the carb heat door. Kelly -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > > > On 2016-Dec-04, at 5:30 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > > > > > In the Van's manual, there are 2 things that are optional : > > - the FAB box drain tube, and > > - the Filter Bypass door > > I put in both myself, but with the filter bypass door in place, I can't > imagine how the drain tube would ever get used. Any fuel that ends up at > the bottom of the FAB box is just going to leak around the edges of the > bypass door, since it's hardly hermetically sealed. > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Filtered Air Box options
Date: Dec 05, 2016
Thanks to all who responded. Phillip Do you have any photo of the rub plate you are recommending? Best Carlos -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Phillip Perry Enviada: Monday, December 5, 2016 1:33 AM Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Filtered Air Box options Yes Yes Alternate source of induction is always a welcome option should it be needed. Fuel drain was no big deal to add, so I can't hurt to let it out. The Alt air door was the most difficult to install but it's not bad either. I'd just be certain that you know your cable route to it so can optimize your pivot point location. I'd also consider pro-sealing an aluminum rub plate in the bottom of the box between the rubber filter edge and fiberglass. I've seen too many filters rub right through the glass. We had a 7A the other day that rubbed all the way through on about 80% of the circumference of the filter. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 4, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > > In the Van's manual, there are 2 things that are optional : > - the FAB box drain tube, and > - the Filter Bypass door > > Can you please tell if you chose, or not, to install both or any of these options, and the reasons why? > > Regards > Carlos > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Loehle aircraft and airplane paint
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2016
Yes On 12/4/2016 9:52 AM, Linn Walters wrote: > I also had to deviate from the info sheets to really thin the paint > to get a much better flow. A lot of the published specs are driven by important VOC control requirements. Commercial shops really need to obey them for the common good. As a first timer/one timer you can give yourself some rookie help by looking under the specs and finding out where a little extra thinning will let you get the results you want without a year's apprenticeship at the local autobody shop. > Just like riveting, the more I painted the better the results. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Anything to delete from baffle kit?
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2016
The baffle material. I used silicon and find it to be super stuff. No significant wear at 800 hours. Easy to work with, looks good, etc On 12/5/2016 1:13 AM, David Carr wrote: > I don't see an inventory listed for the -10 baffle kit---curious if > you wished you'd removed or added anything when you ordered it. > > Thanks, > David --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Carr <junk(at)dcarr.org>
Date: Dec 05, 2016
Subject: Anything to delete from baffle kit?
Thanks for the tip, Bill. I also received the full inventory list this morning from Van's. It's attached in case it's helpful to anyone. David On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Bill Watson wrote: > > The baffle material. I used silicon and find it to be super stuff. No > significant wear at 800 hours. Easy to work with, looks good, etc > On 12/5/2016 1:13 AM, David Carr wrote: > >> I don't see an inventory listed for the -10 baffle kit---curious if you >> wished you'd removed or added anything when you ordered it. >> >> Thanks, >> David >> > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Filtered Air Box options - save your life
From: Tim Lewis <TimRVator(at)comcast.net>
Date: Dec 05, 2016
The round RV air filter has become clogged by snow in at least two cases that I know of, resulting in two fatalities (one case) and an off-field landing (second case). RV carb heat air (at least on the RV-6) was not hot enough to melt snow clogging the round RV air filter. Cowl air is certainly not hot enough to melt snow from the filter. I recommend builders learn from past history (including a fatality). Install a filter bypass (Van's design or another design) that provides an alternate air path to potentially save your life in case of a clogged filter. Tim -- Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA) A&P RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold RV-10 N31TD -- 860 hrs Kelly McMullen wrote on 12/5/2016 5:36 AM: > I have studied the question quite a bit. Quite frankly I think the > bypass door is a bad design and doesn't accomplish what it should. > There is no need to bypass a round filter. > Given that the air filter is an automotive round design, the physics > argue against it ever getting blocked by impact icing or any other > type like snow, frost, dust, you name it. Nothing but vapor can make > the 180 degree turn to hit the backside of the filter. > On the other hand there is some small risk that snow or ice could > block the air intake from the outside. That could be addressed by > installing the carb heat fitting at the front of the snorkel that is > designed for carbureted engines. Whether you hooked it up to heat or > not, it would provide intake air in the unlikely event that the inlet > was blocked, and would be able to be openned and closed. And you would > always have filtered air. > I did install the drain, because I didn't do the bypass door. I'm > still thinking about the carb heat door. > Kelly > > -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm > > On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Dan Charrois > wrote: > > > > > > > On 2016-Dec-04, at 5:30 PM, Carlos Trigo > wrote: > > > > > > > > In the Van's manual, there are 2 things that are optional : > > - the FAB box drain tube, and > > - the Filter Bypass door > > I put in both myself, but with the filter bypass door in place, I > can't imagine how the drain tube would ever get used. Any fuel > that ends up at the bottom of the FAB box is just going to leak > around the edges of the bypass door, since it's hardly > hermetically sealed. > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > > =================================== > br> fts!) > r> > com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com > w.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer" > target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com > p.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com > e.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com > " rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.mrrace.com > rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > =================================== > -List" rel="noreferrer" > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > =================================== > FORUMS - > eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com > =================================== > WIKI - > errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com > =================================== > b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > =================================== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2016
Subject: Re: Filtered Air Box options
I don't have a good photo on my phone apparently. So I just took this one down the snout. I used .063 because I wanted somet hing really firm to suck up tight against the filter. Primarily to reduce t he likely hood of deformation. Mine is pro-sealed in and looks like a donut. The filter bypass sits in th e middle of the donut hole. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 5, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > > Thanks to all who responded. > > Phillip > > Do you have any photo of the rub plate you are recommending? > > Best > Carlos > > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Phillip Perry > Enviada: Monday, December 5, 2016 1:33 AM > Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Filtered Air Box options > > > Yes > Yes > > Alternate source of induction is always a welcome option should it be > needed. > > Fuel drain was no big deal to add, so I can't hurt to let it out. > > The Alt air door was the most difficult to install but it's not bad either . > I'd just be certain that you know your cable route to it so can optimize > your pivot point location. > > I'd also consider pro-sealing an aluminum rub plate in the bottom of the b ox > between the rubber filter edge and fiberglass. > > I've seen too many filters rub right through the glass. We had a 7A the > other day that rubbed all the way through on about 80% of the circumferenc e > of the filter. > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 4, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: >> >> >> In the Van's manual, there are 2 things that are optional : >> - the FAB box drain tube, and >> - the Filter Bypass door >> >> Can you please tell if you chose, or not, to install both or any of these > options, and the reasons why? >> >> Regards >> Carlos >> >> >> >> > > > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2016
Subject: Re: Filtered Air Box options - save your life
Thanks for the heads up. Personally, I have no need nor plans to fly in snow. I suppose one could design a plate to mostly block the normal intake if the carb heat intake was activated, to prevent snow from entering the FAB. Or you can do the Van's bypass to feed unfiltered air. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Tim Lewis wrote: > > The round RV air filter has become clogged by snow in at least two cases > that I know of, resulting in two fatalities (one case) and an off-field > landing (second case). RV carb heat air (at least on the RV-6) was not hot > enough to melt snow clogging the round RV air filter. > > Cowl air is certainly not hot enough to melt snow from the filter. > > I recommend builders learn from past history (including a fatality). > Install a filter bypass (Van's design or another design) that provides an > alternate air path to potentially save your life in case of a clogged > filter. > > Tim > > -- > Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA) > A&P > RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold > RV-10 N31TD -- 860 hrs > > Kelly McMullen wrote on 12/5/2016 5:36 AM: > >> I have studied the question quite a bit. Quite frankly I think the bypass >> door is a bad design and doesn't accomplish what it should. There is no >> need to bypass a round filter. >> Given that the air filter is an automotive round design, the physics >> argue against it ever getting blocked by impact icing or any other type >> like snow, frost, dust, you name it. Nothing but vapor can make the 180 >> degree turn to hit the backside of the filter. >> On the other hand there is some small risk that snow or ice could block >> the air intake from the outside. That could be addressed by installing the >> carb heat fitting at the front of the snorkel that is designed for >> carbureted engines. Whether you hooked it up to heat or not, it would >> provide intake air in the unlikely event that the inlet was blocked, and >> would be able to be openned and closed. And you would always have filtered >> air. >> I did install the drain, because I didn't do the bypass door. I'm still >> thinking about the carb heat door. >> Kelly >> >> -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm >> >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Dan Charrois > dan(at)syz.com>> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > On 2016-Dec-04, at 5:30 PM, Carlos Trigo > > wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > In the Van's manual, there are 2 things that are optional : >> > - the FAB box drain tube, and >> > - the Filter Bypass door >> >> I put in both myself, but with the filter bypass door in place, I >> can't imagine how the drain tube would ever get used. Any fuel >> that ends up at the bottom of the FAB box is just going to leak >> around the edges of the bypass door, since it's hardly >> hermetically sealed. >> >> Dan >> --- >> Dan Charrois >> President, Syzygy Research & Technology >> Phone: 780-961-2213 >> >> >> =================================== >> br> fts!) >> r> > com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com >> w.buildersbooks.com" rel="noreferrer" >> target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com >> p.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com >> e.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com >> " rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.mrrace.com >> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.mat >> ronics.com/contribution >> -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >> =================================== >> -List" rel="noreferrer" >> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> =================================== >> FORUMS - >> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com >> =================================== >> WIKI - >> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com >> =================================== >> b Site - >> -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.mat >> ronics.com/contribution >> =================================== >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net>
Subject: FAB box
Date: Dec 06, 2016
or you can do this ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 06, 2016
Subject: Re: FAB box
Chris, That looks like a very good solution. I don't quite understand how the rear inlets are constructed, but certainly solves all issues with blockage in the front 2/3 of inlet. If you have any other pictures of fabricating this mod, I would be very interested. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Chris Hukill wrote: > or you can do this > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: FAB box
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Dec 06, 2016
Here's what I did. I didn't want any control that I could not reset in flight so ...... Made a blue foam plug on the FAB and glassed over it. Filed the plate to an oval shape that seals pretty good at an angle in the tube. Linn On 12/6/2016 7:45 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > Chris, > That looks like a very good solution. I don't quite understand how the > rear inlets are constructed, but certainly solves all issues with > blockage in the front 2/3 of inlet. If you have any other pictures of > fabricating this mod, I would be very interested. > > -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Chris Hukill > wrote: > > or you can do this > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Subject: What flap setting do you use for takeoff
Date: Dec 09, 2016
I have been using no flaps for my 5000 ft home runway and partial flaps for short runways. What do other people use? Alan N668G 400 hrs ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: What flap setting do you use for takeoff
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 09, 2016
I use partial flaps for all takeoffs, about 20%. Most times Im sure its not necessary, but keeping as many things the same seems like a good habit and I cant think of a reason not to use them. Marcus 800 hrs On Dec 9, 2016, at 7:26 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: I have been using no flaps for my 5000 ft home runway and partial flaps for short runways. What do other people use? Alan N668G 400 hrs ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Date: Dec 09, 2016
Subject: Re: What flap setting do you use for takeoff
Same as you. Carl > On Dec 9, 2016, at 7:26 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: > > > I have been using no flaps for my 5000 ft home runway and partial flaps for short runways. What do other people use? > Alan > N668G > 400 hrs > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Maib <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Dec 09, 2016
Subject: Re: What flap setting do you use for takeoff
Same as you. Alex DeDominices demonstrated to me that flaps fully retracted resulted in a shorter takeoff,during transition training. I tried a few different combinations and techniques during phase 1 and came to the same conclusion. I do use partial flaps on rough/sod runways just to get the load off the gear asap. David Maib > On Dec 9, 2016, at 7:26 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: > > > I have been using no flaps for my 5000 ft home runway and partial flaps for short runways. What do other people use? > Alan > N668G > 400 hrs > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: What flap setting do you use for takeoff
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Dec 09, 2016
Okay, that's what I do; fully retracted (no reflex) for normal takeoffs, partial flaps on rough/sod runways like my home strip. So roughly half my takeoffs are with partial. But I can't make sense out of retracted flaps resulting in a shorter takeoff. Seems possible yet unlikely but I have nothing to back that up. Comments? Technique? Bill "knowing I should just go out and get some numbers" Watson On 12/9/2016 8:34 PM, David Maib wrote: > > Same as you. Alex DeDominices demonstrated to me that flaps fully retracted resulted in a shorter takeoff,during transition training. I tried a few different combinations and techniques during phase 1 and came to the same conclusion. I do use partial flaps on rough/sod runways just to get the load off the gear asap. > > David Maib > > >> On Dec 9, 2016, at 7:26 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: >> >> >> I have been using no flaps for my 5000 ft home runway and partial flaps for short runways. What do other people use? >> Alan >> N668G >> 400 hrs >> >> >> > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 09, 2016
Subject: Re: What flap setting do you use for takeoff
I use 15 degrees for most takeoffs, unless I have a passenger that isn't ready for the acceleration and climb rate. Definitely shorter ground run than with 0 degrees. I haven't focused on actual numbers, suppose I could. More lift, lower lift-off speed are good for less wear and tear on landing gear. More altitude, quicker minimizes time in danger zone of low speed and altitude. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Bill Watson wrote: > > Okay, that's what I do; fully retracted (no reflex) for normal takeoffs, > partial flaps on rough/sod runways like my home strip. So roughly half my > takeoffs are with partial. > > But I can't make sense out of retracted flaps resulting in a shorter > takeoff. Seems possible yet unlikely but I have nothing to back that up. > Comments? Technique? > > Bill "knowing I should just go out and get some numbers" Watson > > On 12/9/2016 8:34 PM, David Maib wrote: > >> >> Same as you. Alex DeDominices demonstrated to me that flaps fully >> retracted resulted in a shorter takeoff,during transition training. I tried >> a few different combinations and techniques during phase 1 and came to the >> same conclusion. I do use partial flaps on rough/sod runways just to get >> the load off the gear asap. >> >> David Maib >> >> >> On Dec 9, 2016, at 7:26 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: >>> >>> >>> I have been using no flaps for my 5000 ft home runway and partial flaps >>> for short runways. What do other people use? >>> Alan >>> N668G >>> 400 hrs >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 11, 2016
Subject: Re: What flap setting do you use for takeoff
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
SSdtIGdvaW5nIHRvIGd1ZXNzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGFkZGVkIGRyYWcgb2YgdGhlIGZsYXBzIGJlaW5n IGRvd24gbGVuZ3RoZW5zIHRoZSB0YWtlb2ZmIHJvbGwuIMKgVGhlIHRha2VvZmYgcm9sbCBpcyBw cmV0dHkgc2hvcnQgd2l0aCB0aGUgZmxhcHMgdXAuIMKgSnVzdCBhIFNXQUcgb24gbXkgcGFydCAu Li4uLiBJJ20gc3RpbGwgcGFpbnRpbmcuCgoKU2VudCBmcm9tIFNhbXN1bmcgdGFibGV0IGNydWlz aW5nIG9uIHRoZSBOYXZpZ2F0b3IgT2YgVGhlIFNlYXMuCgotLS0tLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBtZXNz YWdlIC0tLS0tLS0tCkZyb20gQmlsbCBXYXRzb24gPE1hdWxlZHJpdmVyQG5jLnJyLmNvbT4gCkRh dGU6IDEyLzA5LzIwMTYgIDk6MzQgUE0gIChHTVQtMDU6MDApIApUbyBydjEwLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9u aWNzLmNvbSAKU3ViamVjdCBSZTogUlYxMC1MaXN0OiBXaGF0IGZsYXAgc2V0dGluZyBkbyB5b3Ug dXNlIGZvciB0YWtlb2ZmIAogCi0tPiBSVjEwLUxpc3QgbWVzc2FnZSBwb3N0ZWQgYnk6IEJpbGwg V2F0c29uIDxNYXVsZWRyaXZlckBuYy5yci5jb20+CgpPa2F5LCB0aGF0J3Mgd2hhdCBJIGRvOyBm dWxseSByZXRyYWN0ZWQgKG5vIHJlZmxleCkgZm9yIG5vcm1hbCB0YWtlb2ZmcywgCnBhcnRpYWwg ZmxhcHMgb24gcm91Z2gvc29kIHJ1bndheXMgbGlrZSBteSBob21lIHN0cmlwLsKgIFNvIHJvdWdo bHkgaGFsZiAKbXkgdGFrZW9mZnMgYXJlIHdpdGggcGFydGlhbC4KCkJ1dCBJIGNhbid0IG1ha2Ug c2Vuc2Ugb3V0IG9mIHJldHJhY3RlZCBmbGFwcyByZXN1bHRpbmcgaW4gYSBzaG9ydGVyIAp0YWtl b2ZmLsKgIFNlZW1zIHBvc3NpYmxlIHlldCB1bmxpa2VseSBidXQgSSBoYXZlIG5vdGhpbmcgdG8g YmFjayB0aGF0IAp1cC7CoCBDb21tZW50cz8gVGVjaG5pcXVlPwoKQmlsbCAia25vd2luZyBJIHNo b3VsZCBqdXN0IGdvIG91dCBhbmQgZ2V0IHNvbWUgbnVtYmVycyIgV2F0c29uCgpPbiAxMi85LzIw MTYgODozNCBQTSwgRGF2aWQgTWFpYiB3cm90ZToKPiAtLT4gUlYxMC1MaXN0IG1lc3NhZ2UgcG9z dGVkIGJ5OiBEYXZpZCBNYWliIDxkbWFpYkBtZS5jb20+Cj4KPiBTYW1lIGFzIHlvdS4gQWxleCBE ZURvbWluaWNlcyBkZW1vbnN0cmF0ZWQgdG8gbWUgdGhhdCBmbGFwcyBmdWxseSByZXRyYWN0ZWQg cmVzdWx0ZWQgaW4gYSBzaG9ydGVyIHRha2VvZmYsZHVyaW5nIHRyYW5zaXRpb24gdHJhaW5pbmcu IEkgdHJpZWQgYSBmZXcgZGlmZmVyZW50IGNvbWJpbmF0aW9ucyBhbmQgdGVjaG5pcXVlcyBkdXJp bmcgcGhhc2UgMSBhbmQgY2FtZSB0byB0aGUgc2FtZSBjb25jbHVzaW9uLiBJIGRvIHVzZSBwYXJ0 aWFsIGZsYXBzIG9uIHJvdWdoL3NvZCBydW53YXlzIGp1c3QgdG8gZ2V0IHRoZSBsb2FkIG9mZiB0 aGUgZ2VhciBhc2FwLgo+Cj4gRGF2aWQgTWFpYgo+Cj4KPj4gT24gRGVjIDksIDIwMTYsIGF0IDc6 MjYgUE0sIEFsYW4gTWVrbGVyIE1EIDxhbWVrbGVyQG1ldHJvY2FzdC5uZXQ+IHdyb3RlOgo+Pgo+ PiAtLT4gUlYxMC1MaXN0IG1lc3NhZ2UgcG9zdGVkIGJ5OiBBbGFuIE1la2xlciBNRCA8YW1la2xl ckBtZXRyb2Nhc3QubmV0Pgo+Pgo+PiBJIGhhdmUgYmVlbiB1c2luZyBubyBmbGFwcyBmb3IgbXkg NTAwMCBmdCBob21lIHJ1bndheSBhbmQgcGFydGlhbCBmbGFwcyBmb3Igc2hvcnQgcnVud2F5cy4g V2hhdCBkbyBvdGhlciBwZW9wbGUgdXNlPwo+PiBBbGFuCj4+IE42NjhHCj4+IDQwMCBocnMKPj4K Pj4KPj4KPgo+Cj4KPgoKCi0tLQpUaGlzIGVtYWlsIGhhcyBiZWVuIGNoZWNrZWQgZm9yIHZpcnVz ZXMgYnkgQXZhc3QgYW50aXZpcnVzIHNvZnR3YXJlLgpodHRwczovL3d3dy5hdmFzdC5jb20vYW50 aXZpcnVzCgpfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PQpfLT0KXy09wqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgIC0tIFBsZWFzZSBTdXBwb3J0IFlvdXIg TGlzdHMgVGhpcyBNb250aCAtLQpfLT3CoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoCAoQW5kIEdldCBTb21l IEFXRVNPTUUgRlJFRSBHaWZ0cyEpCl8tPQpfLT3CoMKgIE5vdmVtYmVyIGlzIHRoZSBBbm51YWwg TGlzdCBGdW5kIFJhaXNlci7CoCBDbGljayBvbgpfLT3CoMKgIHRoZSBDb250cmlidXRpb24gbGlu ayBiZWxvdyB0byBmaW5kIG91dCBtb3JlIGFib3V0Cl8tPcKgwqAgdGhpcyB5ZWFyJ3MgVGVycmlm aWMgRnJlZSBJbmNlbnRpdmUgR2lmdHMgcHJvdmlkZWQKXy09wqDCoCBieToKXy09wqDCoCAKXy09 wqDCoMKgwqAgKiBBZXJvRWxlY3RyaWMgd3d3LmFlcm9lbGVjdHJpYy5jb20KXy09wqDCoMKgwqAg KiBUaGUgQnVpbGRlcidzIEJvb2tzdG9yZSB3d3cuYnVpbGRlcnNib29rcy5jb20KXy09wqDCoMKg wqAgKiBIb21lYnVpbHRIRUxQIHd3dy5ob21lYnVpbHRoZWxwLmNvbQpfLT3CoMKgwqDCoCAqIE15 IFBpbG90IFN0b3JlIHd3dy5teXBpbG90c3RvcmUuY29tCl8tPcKgwqDCoMKgICogUmFjZSBDb25z dWx0aW5nIHd3dy5tcnJhY2UuY29tCl8tPQpfLT3CoMKgIExpc3QgQ29udHJpYnV0aW9uIFdlYiBT aXRlOgpfLT0KXy09wqDCoCAtLT4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL2NvbnRyaWJ1dGlv bgpfLT0KXy09wqDCoCBUaGFuayB5b3UgZm9yIHlvdXIgZ2VuZXJvdXMgc3VwcG9ydCEKXy09Cl8t PcKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKg wqAgLU1hdHQgRHJhbGxlLCBMaXN0IEFkbWluLgpfLT0KXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0KXy09wqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDC oMKgIC0gVGhlIFJWMTAtTGlzdCBFbWFpbCBGb3J1bSAtCl8tPSBVc2UgdGhlIE1hdHJvbmljcyBM aXN0IEZlYXR1cmVzIE5hdmlnYXRvciB0byBicm93c2UKXy09IHRoZSBtYW55IExpc3QgdXRpbGl0 aWVzIHN1Y2ggYXMgTGlzdCBVbi9TdWJzY3JpcHRpb24sCl8tPSBBcmNoaXZlIFNlYXJjaCAmIERv d25sb2FkLCA3LURheSBCcm93c2UsIENoYXQsIEZBUSwKXy09IFBob3Rvc2hhcmUsIGFuZCBtdWNo IG11Y2ggbW9yZToKXy09Cl8tPcKgwqAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbS9OYXZp Z2F0b3I/UlYxMC1MaXN0Cl8tPQpfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQpfLT3CoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKg IC0gTUFUUk9OSUNTIFdFQiBGT1JVTVMgLQpfLT0gU2FtZSBncmVhdCBjb250ZW50IGFsc28gYXZh aWxhYmxlIHZpYSB0aGUgV2ViIEZvcnVtcyEKXy09Cl8tPcKgwqAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly9mb3J1bXMu bWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbQpfLT0KXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0KXy09wqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqAgLSBO RVcgTUFUUk9OSUNTIExJU1QgV0lLSSAtCl8tPSBBZGQgc29tZSBpbmZvIHRvIHRoZSBNYXRyb25p Y3MgRW1haWwgTGlzdCBXaWtpIQpfLT3CoMKgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vd2lraS5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29t Cl8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09Cl8tPcKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoCAtIExpc3QgQ29udHJpYnV0aW9uIFdl YiBTaXRlIC0KXy09wqAgVGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciB5b3VyIGdlbmVyb3VzIHN1cHBvcnQhCl8tPcKg wqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgwqAg LU1hdHQgRHJhbGxlLCBMaXN0IEFkbWluLgpfLT3CoMKgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmlj cy5jb20vY29udHJpYnV0aW9uCl8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09CgoKCg= ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: What flap setting do you use for takeoff
From: "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com>
Date: Dec 11, 2016
Lynn, It's the other way around. Much shorter ground run with 10 degrees of flaps on takeoff, and way too long with flaps in the reflex (-3) position. Lenny flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com wrote: > I'm going to guess that the added drag of the flaps being down lengthens the takeoff roll. The takeoff roll is pretty short with the flaps up. Just a SWAG on my part ..... I'm still painting. > -------- Lenny N311LZ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=463839#463839 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2016
From: tony Dubeansky <mrdubea(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
I have an 0540-A1D5 Lycoming and am changing it to a IO540.=C2- I am inst alling a light speed dual plasma III CD ignition kit and fuel injection sys tem by airflow performance. I have a few problems I need some advice on. Si nce I am changing from an 0540 to an IO 540, it is my understanding that th e engine max RPM will=C2- increase roughly 10%.=C2-=C2-in order for t he engine to handle the increase the counter weight and rollers must be cha nged. If I split the case changing the counterweight would be no problem. I really don't want t split the case. I was told that you could access the c ounterweight by removing #5 cylinder. I did and can access them: I removed spring clips and rollers but I can't get the loose counterweight out of the engine block through #5 cylinder hole. Has anybody tried this before? If s o, what am I doing wrong?=C2-Problem #2=C2-=C2- Since I'm putting on electronic ignition, I sent my flywheel off to light speed to get the magne t installed. I told that the flywheel was too old and would not work. Klaus could not supply the part # for a replacement flywheel.=C2- If anyone ha s the right # for the flywheel on a 0540-A1DS that would work I would appre ciate it.=C2- TD ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Dec 12, 2016
Subject: Re:
In theory there should be no increase in RPM. That should all be controlled b y the prop governor. What is your redline now? It sounds like you have already disassembled a lot, which may not be necessa ry. Some planes are limited on rpm by the type of connecting rods, some by t he counterweights and some simply by the airframe they were certified for. I may have a used flywheel available that I could sell you. It may not be fo r that specific model, but if it fits, then it should work. I would recommend a call to Allen Barrett at BPE Engines to ask if the count erweights need to be changed. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 12, 2016, at 11:12 AM, tony Dubeansky wrote: > > I have an 0540-A1D5 Lycoming and am changing it to a IO540. I am installi ng a light speed dual plasma III CD ignition kit and fuel injection system b y airflow performance. I have a few problems I need some advice on. Since I a m changing from an 0540 to an IO 540, it is my understanding that the engine max RPM will increase roughly 10%. in order for the engine to handle the i ncrease the counter weight and rollers must be changed. If I split the case c hanging the counterweight would be no problem. I really don't want t split t he case. I was told that you could access the counterweight by removing #5 c ylinder. I did and can access them: I removed spring clips and rollers but I can't get the loose counterweight out of the engine block through #5 cylind er hole. Has anybody tried this before? If so, what am I doing wrong? > > Problem #2 Since I'm putting on electronic ignition, I sent my flywheel o ff to light speed to get the magnet installed. I told that the flywheel was t oo old and would not work. Klaus could not supply the part # for a replaceme nt flywheel. If anyone has the right # for the flywheel on a 0540-A1DS that would work I would appreciate it. TD ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 12, 2016
Subject: Re: : RV10-List:
I agree with Jesse. I think you got in over your head on the engine without consulting a knowledgeable shop or A&P. Your redline will increase from 2575 to 2700. That does not call for a counterweight change. While the A4 and B4 engine counterweights may be a bit more effective than the A1 counterweights, I see no reason to change them. You really want some expertise in who changes the counterweights, they are a critical part of the engine and need to be installed correctly by someone that has done it before. Talk to a top engine shop, like Barrett Performance, Zeyhrhills, Mattituck, Poplar Grove, Lycon, to see whether it is worth it or not. As to the flywheel and the magnet...I would seriously look to other brands of electronic ignition. There is Electro-Air, probably EMag, G3, etc that don't likely need any addition to the flywheel. Yes, you get better combustion, easier starting, maybe a little more power. The RV-10 really doesn't need more power than the 260 hp stock engine, unless you are operating out of a very short strip. More power reduces your margin to the design flutter speed, and increases fuel consumption. The plane is already a 170 kt cruiser if you choose to burn that much gas. The Lightspeed is a somewhat old design by now. Actually, I question how much you gain from increasing the max rpm for all of 10 hp. 250 is fine for the RV-10. You can do fuel injection just fine, keeping the 2575 redline. During my phase I, with hot Aridzona temps, I limited my takeoffs to about 80% power to keep CHT under control. Remember Vans #2 prototype/demonstrator is used very frequently for transition training and only has 210 hp. Yes, it cost maybe 8-10 kts at top speed, but it flys fine. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Jesse Saint wrote: > In theory there should be no increase in RPM. That should all be > controlled by the prop governor. What is your redline now? > > It sounds like you have already disassembled a lot, which may not be > necessary. Some planes are limited on rpm by the type of connecting rods, > some by the counterweights and some simply by the airframe they were > certified for. > > I may have a used flywheel available that I could sell you. It may not be > for that specific model, but if it fits, then it should work. > > I would recommend a call to Allen Barrett at BPE Engines to ask if the > counterweights need to be changed. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > C: 352-427-0285 <(352)%20427-0285> > F: 815-377-3694 <(815)%20377-3694> > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 12, 2016, at 11:12 AM, tony Dubeansky wrote: > > I have an 0540-A1D5 Lycoming and am changing it to a IO540. I am > installing a light speed dual plasma III CD ignition kit and fuel injection > system by airflow performance. I have a few problems I need some advice on. > Since I am changing from an 0540 to an IO 540, it is my understanding that > the engine max RPM will increase roughly 10%. in order for the engine to > handle the increase the counter weight and rollers must be changed. If I > split the case changing the counterweight would be no problem. I really > don't want t split the case. I was told that you could access the > counterweight by removing #5 cylinder. I did and can access them: I removed > spring clips and rollers but I can't get the loose counterweight out of the > engine block through #5 cylinder hole. Has anybody tried this before? If > so, what am I doing wrong? > > Problem #2 Since I'm putting on electronic ignition, I sent my flywheel > off to light speed to get the magnet installed. I told that the flywheel > was too old and would not work. Klaus could not supply the part # for a > replacement flywheel. If anyone has the right # for the flywheel on a > 0540-A1DS that would work I would appreciate it. TD > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Added ADS-B
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Dec 12, 2016
Bob Turner wrote: > So just yesterday I started paying for my $1100 ADSB plan. Of course, I didn't count any equipment I already own!! I will report in due time on the outcome. > Equipment already owned: GRT HX, Garmin 420W, Garmin GTX-327 transponder, Skyradar D2 ADSB in. > Upgrades: > GRT HX software - free > Garmin 420W firmware - $100 > Trig TT22 remote mode S-ES transponder with RS232to 422 adaptor - $2200 > > Gains: > $500 from FAA > sell 327 for about $700. > > Net cost: $1100. > > To be honest I lucked into the FAA rebate. I would have done this earlier but wanted to wait until my transponder certification was nearly due anyway, to avoid that extra cost. > > Yes, I will need to go fly the FAA's 'profile', and it appears that must be done in ADSB required airspace, so that means above 10,000' for me. But, in my acounting scheme, flying is free! > > As to the tax status of the $500, I believe this is a cya from the FAA. Certainly Ford gives out tax free rebates all the time, although not from public funds. Besides, I'm not in a high enough tax bracket to worry about it. And-part of my strangeness-I derive some pleasure arguing with the IRS. > > PS I only paid $500 for the factory refurbished Skyradar so my total -in and -out cost should come in around $1600. Final result: $1180. 420w software was $80 (cash price), I only got $600 for the 327. I had to put in new beta version HX software (free) to get the unit to promptly switch to ground mode on landing, to pass the FAA test. I got the FAA's $500 check today. Tim: I have decided the FAA's $500 is 'hobby income'. My hobby losses are a lot more than that, so the $500 won't get taxed. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=463873#463873 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2016
From: tony Dubeansky <mrdubea(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV10
Thank you, Jesse and Kelly for your reply. I have been asking anyone and everyone about the counterweights dilemma, including several engine builders for over three years. There comes a time when you have to crap or get off the pot. After about twelve hours of frustration the counterweights have been removed and the new ones reinstalled. As far as electronic ignition is concerned, there is no point in turning back. I sold the mags, electronic ignition is paid for and the weights have been changed. Unless there is a safety issue concerning the quality of the system I am going to keep it. If anyone has heard of any failures, I'd appreciate hearing from you. I am still looking for a flywheel that will work with the system and my engine. Thanks again for any and all help. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: What flap setting do you use for takeoff
From: "Mike Whisky" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Dec 13, 2016
Attached my Vx / Vy measurements during Phase I it was done with flaps 0 degrees. Would be interesting to see what it would be with 10 or 15 degrees. Regards Mike -------- RV-10 builder (flying) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=463888#463888 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0333_606.png ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: What flap setting do you use for takeoff
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Date: Dec 13, 2016
Mike, just redo your testflights and send the data to Andre :) and then you will know. Cheers Werner On 13.12.2016 19:33, Mike Whisky wrote: > > Attached my Vx / Vy measurements during Phase I it was done with flaps 0 degrees. Would be interesting to see what it would be with 10 or 15 degrees. > Regards > Mike > > -------- > RV-10 builder (flying) > #511 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: What flap setting do you use for takeoff
From: "Mike Whisky" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net>
Date: Dec 13, 2016
Great idea if I ever find the time but an even better suggestion you do it during your Phase 1, just get the -10 done quickly -------- RV-10 builder (flying) #511 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=463891#463891 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0293_511.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: What flap setting do you use for takeoff
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Date: Dec 13, 2016
I would do that for you but might need help for finishing the remaining 90% :) But wait, there is Gordon he should be close ;) Cheers Werner On 13.12.2016 21:07, Mike Whisky wrote: > > Great idea if I ever find the time but an even better suggestion you do it during your Phase 1, just get the -10 done quickly > > -------- > RV-10 builder (flying) > #511 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=463891#463891 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0293_511.jpg > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Airport Courtesy Cars App Closing?
From: "gbrasch" <gmbrasch(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 14, 2016
IMPORTANT! If you are a user of the app version of Airport Courtesy Cars, please view it for an important message about the possible closure of the app, or view the page here: https://www.airportcourtesycars.com/app-status.html -------- Glenn Brasch RV-9A Flying Medevac Helicopter Pilot (Ret) Owner, "Airport Courtesy Cars" Smart Phone App and www.airportcourtesycars.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=463928#463928 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Airport Courtesy Cars App Closing?
From: "gbrasch" <gmbrasch(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 18, 2016
I am happy to report that thanks to donations, the site continues. View the donors or add your name by clicking here: https://www.airportcourtesycars.com/thank-you-donors-.html Thanks, Glenn -------- Glenn Brasch RV-9A Flying Medevac Helicopter Pilot (Ret) Owner, "Airport Courtesy Cars" Smart Phone App and www.airportcourtesycars.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=464137#464137 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: MT P860-3 Prop Gov fail.
From: "tsts4" <tsts4us(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2016
So it's been almost 5 months since my prop gov self destructed and shelled the engine on my RV-10, Finally got it back from BPE this past Wed and got it mounted today: Now just a few things to tidy up (fuel and oil lines, throttle body, air box, exhaust, primary alternator, starter, sensors, p-leads, electrical wiring, control cables, ring gear, prop, prop governor, and baffles) and we're back in business. It was supposed to be on the in the paint shop right now getting finishing touches on it's paint job, but I had to give up my slot. Luckily I was able to swap with the guy behind me so I'll get it painted in March. -------- Todd Stovall aka Auburntsts on EAA, AOPA, and VAF RV-10 N728TT -- Grounded for engine teardown!!!! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=464282#464282 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2016
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 2016 List of Contributors
Dear Listers, The 2016 Matronics Email List and Forum Fund Raiser officially ended a couple of weeks ago and it's time that I published this year's List of Contributors. It is the people on this list that directly make these Email Lists and Forums possible! Their generous Contributions keep the servers and Internet connection up and running! You can still show your support this year and pick up a great gift at the same time. The Contribution Web Site is fast, easy, and secure: 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 also want to thank Andy, Bob, George, and Jon for their generous support through the supply of many great gifts this year!! These guys have some excellent products and I encourage you to visit their respective web sites: Andy Gold - The Builder's Bookstore - http://www.buildersbooks.com Bob Nucklolls - AeroElectric - http://www.aeroelectric.com George Race - Race Consulting - http://www.mrrace.com Jon Croke - HomebuiltHELP - http://www.homebuilthelp.com And finally, I'm proud to present The 2016 Fund Raiser List of Contributors: http://www.matronics.com/loc/2016.html Thank you again to everyone that made a Contribution this year!! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List & Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: MT Propeller Torque
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Dec 29, 2016
Re-installing my MT propeller after an overhaul and I cannot find the torque numbers. MT is closed until Jan. 9th here in the US and in Germany. Does anyone here know what the correct torque is? I think it is in the mid to upper 60's (foot pounds), but not sure. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=464470#464470 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 29, 2016
Subject: Re: MT Propeller Torque
The answer is it depends.... For the prop most of us are using it's the MTV12B/193-53. 300 HP and down, that prop gets 63-66 ft-lb. 300 HP or above, that prop gets 90-100 ft-lb. Here is a link to the document with english on the right side. http://www.mt-propeller.com/pdf/manuals/e-124.pdf You have to look at the model number on your prop to determine bolts used in your flange. (That's page 9) Then you can find the torque for them on your specific HP. (That's on page 19). Phil On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 10:16 AM, dmaib(at)me.com wrote: > > Re-installing my MT propeller after an overhaul and I cannot find the > torque numbers. MT is closed until Jan. 9th here in the US and in Germany. > Does anyone here know what the correct torque is? I think it is in the mid > to upper 60's (foot pounds), but not sure. > > -------- > David Maib > RV-10 #40559 > New Smyrna Beach, FL > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=464470#464470 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: MT Propeller Torque
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Dec 29, 2016
Thanks Phil. That is the info I needed. Wolfgang from MT Germany responded to an email I sent at the same time you did and confirms it is 63 to 66 ft. lbs. for my prop/engine. They are closed for the holidays, but he apparently checks his email! -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=464473#464473 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Airport Cafe's Now Listed in ACC's
From: "gbrasch" <gmbrasch(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 31, 2016
I have just added over 50 airport cafs (and still growing) to current listings in the Airport Courtesy Cars website and app (just in case your courtesy car isnt available when you arrive!) These listings are highlighted in red so you can easily find them. If you have any additions or corrections, please email them directly to me at airportcars101(at)gmail.com. Thanks and Happy New Year! Glenn PS, Submit your ramp fee's experience also for inclusion in the website/app! -------- Glenn Brasch RV-9A Flying Medevac Helicopter Pilot (Ret) Owner, "Airport Courtesy Cars" Smart Phone App and www.airportcourtesycars.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=464552#464552 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David" <dlm34077(at)cox.net>
Subject: FYI December 2014 issue IFR flying
Date: Jan 02, 2017
Because it is winter, there is a good article on Ice and tail stalls in the referenced issue. I don't fly ice anymore but should you encounter it flying the 10, the article provides some does and don'ts. Having flown a Cessna Cardinal for about 30 years and built a Glastar in addition to a 10, I have learned a little about tail stalls. I first heard of the problem and considered it back when the C177 did not have the slots in the tail. Pilots were trying to land the Cardinal and in the flare with flaps deployed, they stalled the horizontal stabilator. The result was a rapid pitch downward and a damaged nose gear. This problem can also be demonstrated in the Glastar. It can be built improperly with the wrong horizontal stabilizer angle of incidence and a tail stall can be experienced in the flare even without flaps deployed. Mine was built properly but the pilot who made first flight in my Glastar made the approach at 10-20 knots faster than normally required and no flaps to protect himself from such a potential problem. The referenced article also notes that tail stalls can also be experienced with flaps deployed and ice on the tail. The problem exists both for high and low wing aircraft. My plans are to stay out of ice but should I encounter and experience a tail stall I plan to be prepared. David McNeill COM, CFII, A&P N46007 N48007 And a few numbers reserved --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <lewgall(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: FYI December 2014 issue IFR flying
Date: Jan 02, 2017
http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/1_39/features/Ice-and-Tail-Stalls_478- 1.html Later, =93 Lew From: David Sent: Monday, January 02, 2017 9:17 AM Subject: RV10-List: FYI December 2014 issue IFR flying Because it is winter, there is a good article on Ice and tail stalls in the referenced issue. I don=99t fly ice anymore but should you encounter it flying the 10, the article provides some does and don=99ts. Having flown a Cessna Cardinal for about 30 years and built a Glastar in addition to a 10, I have learned a little about tail stalls. I first heard of the problem and considered it back when the C177 did not have the slots in the tail. Pilots were trying to land the Cardinal and in the flare with flaps deployed, they stalled the horizontal stabilator. The result was a rapid pitch downward and a damaged nose gear. This problem can also be demonstrated in the Glastar. It can be built improperly with the wrong horizontal stabilizer angle of incidence and a tail stall can be experienced in the flare even without flaps deployed. Mine was built properly but the pilot who made first flight in my Glastar made the approach at 10-20 knots faster than normally required and no flaps to protect himself from such a potential problem. The referenced article also notes that tail stalls can also be experienced with flaps deployed and ice on the tail. The problem exists both for high and low wing aircraft. My plans are to stay out of ice but should I encounter and experience a tail stall I plan to be prepared. David McNeill COM, CFII, A&P N46007 N48007 And a few numbers reserved ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Carr <junk(at)dcarr.org>
Date: Jan 03, 2017
Subject: Spacers to simulate prop for fitting cowling?
First of all, happy new year! Has anyone successfully used spacers (in lieu of the propeller) to fit the cowling? Vans has a note here that specifies the method: http://vansaircraft.com/pdf/Prop_Cowl.pdf Unfortunately, another builder says here that the lengths given above are incorrect!?! http://www.azcloudflyer.com/finish22.html I would very much appreciate your experience one way or the other on this. My father is coming down this afternoon to help out and I'd like to take advantage of his time, but really don't want to make a big mistake either. David ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: FYI December 2014 issue IFR flying
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Jan 03, 2017
Thanks! Good article there. FWIW, I've learned to first look for ice on my 10's stabilizer. It's easiest to see there but I think that's because it is red rather than white like the wing. Conversely, I've found it very difficult to see ice on the wing. I once had a very slow degradation in airspeed due to ice was never able to see the ice on the wing. I've considered painting some kind of dark patch on the wing near the left root so I might be able to detect ice ASAP and get the hell out of there. Has anyone done that? Any ice detection pireps for the '10? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Spacers to simulate prop for fitting cowling?
Date: Jan 03, 2017
I used a Hartzell hub from an old prop for the cowl fit up (no blades). Even then I took a dozen measurement to make sure it was the same as the hub on the new prop. The prop to cowl spacing is such that I would not trust a =9Cprop simulator=9D. Ask around =93 someone might have a hub to use. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Carr Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 1:02 PM Subject: RV10-List: Spacers to simulate prop for fitting cowling? First of all, happy new year! Has anyone successfully used spacers (in lieu of the propeller) to fit the cowling? Vans has a note here that specifies the method: http://vansaircraft.com/pdf/Prop_Cowl.pdf Unfortunately, another builder says here that the lengths given above are incorrect!?! http://www.azcloudflyer.com/finish22.html I would very much appreciate your experience one way or the other on this. My father is coming down this afternoon to help out and I'd like to take advantage of his time, but really don't want to make a big mistake either. David ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 03, 2017
Subject: Re: Spacers to simulate prop for fitting cowling?
There are other variables that can screw you up. Spinner bulkheads and spinners have differing depth. My MT spinner is a good 3/8" behind the face of the bulkhead, so I had to rework the back of my cowling and adjust the rest of it as a result of moving cowling back 3/8". While it is a chunk of money to have the prop and spinner on hand in time for cowling work, it is the only way you will get a reliable measurement. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > I used a Hartzell hub from an old prop for the cowl fit up (no blades). > Even then I took a dozen measurement to make sure it was the same as the > hub on the new prop. The prop to cowl spacing is such that I would not > trust a =9Cprop simulator=9D. > > > Ask around =93 someone might have a hub to use. > > > Carl > > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list- > server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *David Carr > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 03, 2017 1:02 PM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RV10-List: Spacers to simulate prop for fitting cowling? > > > First of all, happy new year! > > > Has anyone successfully used spacers (in lieu of the propeller) to fit th e > cowling? > > > Vans has a note here that specifies the method: > > http://vansaircraft.com/pdf/Prop_Cowl.pdf > > > Unfortunately, another builder says here that the lengths given above are > incorrect!?! > > http://www.azcloudflyer.com/finish22.html > > > I would very much appreciate your experience one way or the other on > this. My father is coming down this afternoon to help out and I'd like t o > take advantage of his time, but really don't want to make a big mistake > either. > > > David > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 03, 2017
Subject: Spacers to simulate prop for fitting cowling?
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
SSB1c2VkIHRoZSBwcm9wLiBUaGlzIGlzIG5vdCB0aGUgdGltZSB0byBnZXQgYWhlYWQgb2YgeW91 cnNlbGYuIElmIHRoZSBpbmZvIHlvdSBnZXQgaXNuJ3Qgc3BvdCBvbiB0aGVuIGl0IHdvbid0IGxv b2sgcmlnaHQuIMKgSU1ITyBvZiBjb3Vyc2UuCgoKU2VudCBmcm9tIFNhbXN1bmcgdGFibGV0IGNy dWlzaW5nIG9uIHRoZSBPYXNpcyBPZiBUaGUgU2Vhcy4KCi0tLS0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIG1lc3Nh Z2UgLS0tLS0tLS0KRnJvbSBEYXZpZCBDYXJyIDxqdW5rQGRjYXJyLm9yZz4gCkRhdGU6IDAxLzAz LzIwMTcgIDE6MDEgUE0gIChHTVQtMDU6MDApIApUbyBydjEwLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbSAK U3ViamVjdCBSVjEwLUxpc3Q6IFNwYWNlcnMgdG8gc2ltdWxhdGUgcHJvcCBmb3IgZml0dGluZyBj b3dsaW5nPyAKIApGaXJzdCBvZiBhbGwsIGhhcHB5IG5ldyB5ZWFyIQoKSGFzIGFueW9uZSBzdWNj ZXNzZnVsbHkgdXNlZCBzcGFjZXJzIChpbiBsaWV1IG9mIHRoZSBwcm9wZWxsZXIpIHRvIGZpdCB0 aGUgY293bGluZz8KClZhbnMgaGFzIGEgbm90ZSBoZXJlIHRoYXQgc3BlY2lmaWVzIHRoZSBtZXRo b2Q6Cmh0dHA6Ly92YW5zYWlyY3JhZnQuY29tL3BkZi9Qcm9wX0Nvd2wucGRmCgpVbmZvcnR1bmF0 ZWx5LCBhbm90aGVyIGJ1aWxkZXIgc2F5cyBoZXJlIHRoYXQgdGhlIGxlbmd0aHMgZ2l2ZW4gYWJv dmUgYXJlIGluY29ycmVjdCE/IQpodHRwOi8vd3d3LmF6Y2xvdWRmbHllci5jb20vZmluaXNoMjIu aHRtbAoKSSB3b3VsZCB2ZXJ5IG11Y2ggYXBwcmVjaWF0ZSB5b3VyIGV4cGVyaWVuY2Ugb25lIHdh eSBvciB0aGUgb3RoZXIgb24gdGhpcy7CoCBNeSBmYXRoZXIgaXMgY29taW5nIGRvd24gdGhpcyBh ZnRlcm5vb24gdG8gaGVscCBvdXQgYW5kIEknZCBsaWtlIHRvIHRha2UgYWR2YW50YWdlIG9mIGhp cyB0aW1lLCBidXQgcmVhbGx5IGRvbid0IHdhbnQgdG8gbWFrZSBhIGJpZyBtaXN0YWtlIGVpdGhl ci4KCkRhdmlk ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Carr <junk(at)dcarr.org>
Date: Jan 03, 2017
Subject: Re: Spacers to simulate prop for fitting cowling?
Thanks for the input, guys. I managed to get a scrapped hub from a nearby prop shop. However, I've encountered one more snag---how long are the spacers that go between the hub and the spinner backplate? The plans say they're supplied with the prop and don't give a dimension. They're the ones indicated in red in the attached drawing. Thanks, David On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > I used a Hartzell hub from an old prop for the cowl fit up (no blades). > Even then I took a dozen measurement to make sure it was the same as the > hub on the new prop. The prop to cowl spacing is such that I would not > trust a =9Cprop simulator=9D. > > > Ask around =93 someone might have a hub to use. > > > Carl > > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list- > server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *David Carr > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 03, 2017 1:02 PM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RV10-List: Spacers to simulate prop for fitting cowling? > > > First of all, happy new year! > > > Has anyone successfully used spacers (in lieu of the propeller) to fit th e > cowling? > > > Vans has a note here that specifies the method: > > http://vansaircraft.com/pdf/Prop_Cowl.pdf > > > Unfortunately, another builder says here that the lengths given above are > incorrect!?! > > http://www.azcloudflyer.com/finish22.html > > > I would very much appreciate your experience one way or the other on > this. My father is coming down this afternoon to help out and I'd like t o > take advantage of his time, but really don't want to make a big mistake > either. > > > David > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Spacers to simulate prop for fitting cowling?
Date: Jan 03, 2017
Wait until you get the prop and use those spacers. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Carr Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 6:55 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Spacers to simulate prop for fitting cowling? Thanks for the input, guys. I managed to get a scrapped hub from a nearby prop shop. However, I've encountered one more snag---how long are the spacers that go between the hub and the spinner backplate? The plans say they're supplied with the prop and don't give a dimension. They're the ones indicated in red in the attached drawing. Thanks, David On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: I used a Hartzell hub from an old prop for the cowl fit up (no blades). Even then I took a dozen measurement to make sure it was the same as the hub on the new prop. The prop to cowl spacing is such that I would not trust a =9Cprop simulator=9D. Ask around =93 someone might have a hub to use. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Carr Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 1:02 PM Subject: RV10-List: Spacers to simulate prop for fitting cowling? First of all, happy new year! Has anyone successfully used spacers (in lieu of the propeller) to fit the cowling? Vans has a note here that specifies the method: http://vansaircraft.com/pdf/Prop_Cowl.pdf Unfortunately, another builder says here that the lengths given above are incorrect!?! http://www.azcloudflyer.com/finish22.html I would very much appreciate your experience one way or the other on this. My father is coming down this afternoon to help out and I'd like to take advantage of his time, but really don't want to make a big mistake either. David ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ed Kranz <ed.kranz(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 04, 2017
Subject: Re: FYI December 2014 issue IFR flying
Ice detection is one of the big reasons that the leading edges of my wings and stab are black (that and the design looked good!) I've picked up trace in hazy VMC, and the black paint made the ice stand out pretty clearly. ....plus bugs don't show up as much :) On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Bill Watson wrote: > Thanks! Good article there. > > FWIW, I've learned to first look for ice on my 10's stabilizer. It's > easiest to see there but I think that's because it is red rather than white > like the wing. Conversely, I've found it very difficult to see ice on the > wing. I once had a very slow degradation in airspeed due to ice was never > able to see the ice on the wing. > > I've considered painting some kind of dark patch on the wing near the left > root so I might be able to detect ice ASAP and get the hell out of there. > Has anyone done that? Any ice detection pireps for the '10? > > ------------------------------ > [image: Avast logo] > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com > > > ------------------------------ > [image: Avast logo] > > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David" <dlm34077(at)cox.net>
Subject: camping in the 10
Date: Jan 04, 2017
We are planning on several fly out camping weeks this summer; are there flight groups that camp; we are considering whether to fly into a paved airport a short distance from the camping sites, rent a car and travel to the campsite. Of course the other option is flight into the camping area directly. With the backseats removed we should have about 350 pounds for tents, supplies, sleeping bags etc. Does anyone know of good sites for fly in camping (in the West) and/or groups that camp together? David --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: P Reid <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: camping in the 10
Date: Jan 05, 2017
Most of our trips are camping in the -10. When you say "west" are you in Ca lifornia, Oregon, Washington? If California - Columbia is great (o22), Oceano (L52), Kern Valley (lake Is abella) all are at airport camping and always available. Oregon- Manzanita, Havent reached Washington yet. If you want a group, let me know and be glad to meet up, I know of a couple of others who would do the same. Already planning Memorial Day- so ideas a re welcomed- I'll be glad to load up the 3 women and their suitcases (for a overnight trip ;-) no need to take out seats unless you're bringing bikes as the baggage area has enough room for camping. If you're interested in Arizona- Payson has a great campsite on the airport - restaurant walking distance. Pascal SoCal From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m atronics.com] On Behalf Of David Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 7:42 PM Subject: RV10-List: camping in the 10 We are planning on several fly out camping weeks this summer; are there fli ght groups that camp; we are considering whether to fly into a paved airpor t a short distance from the camping sites, rent a car and travel to the cam psite. Of course the other option is flight into the camping area directly. With the backseats removed we should have about 350 pounds for tents, supp lies, sleeping bags etc. Does anyone know of good sites for fly in camping (in the West) and/or groups that camp together? David ________________________________ [Avast logo] This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: camping in the 10
From: "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com>
Date: Jan 04, 2017
David, Check out these guys: Recreational Aviation Foundation http://www.theraf.org/ Lenny -------- Lenny N311LZ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=464715#464715 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 05, 2017
Subject: camping in the 10
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
R28gdG8gdGhlcmFmLm9yZy4gVGhlIG1pc3Npb24gb2YgdGhlIFJBRiBpcyB0byBvcGVuIGNhbXBp bmcgc3RyaXBzIG9uIEZlZGVyYWwgYW5kIHByaXZhdGUgbGFuZHMuIExvdHMgb2YgcGxhY2VzIG91 dCB3ZXN0LiBJJ2xsIGJlIHVzaW5nIG15IC0xMCB0aGUgc2FtZSB3YXkgd2hlbiBpdCdzIGZpbmlz aGVkLgpMaW5uCgoKU2VudCBmcm9tIFNhbXN1bmcgdGFibGV0IGNydWlzaW5nIG9uIHRoZSBPYXNp cyBPZiBUaGUgU2Vhcy4KCi0tLS0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIG1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0tLS0KRnJvbSBE YXZpZCA8ZGxtMzQwNzdAY294Lm5ldD4gCkRhdGU6IDAxLzA0LzIwMTcgIDEwOjQyIFBNICAoR01U LTA1OjAwKSAKVG8gcnYxMC1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20gClN1YmplY3QgUlYxMC1MaXN0OiBj YW1waW5nIGluIHRoZSAxMCAKIApXZSBhcmUgcGxhbm5pbmcgb24gc2V2ZXJhbCBmbHkgb3V0IGNh bXBpbmcgd2Vla3MgdGhpcyBzdW1tZXI7IGFyZSB0aGVyZSBmbGlnaHQgZ3JvdXBzIHRoYXQgY2Ft cDsgd2UgYXJlIGNvbnNpZGVyaW5nIHdoZXRoZXIgdG8gZmx5IGludG8gYSBwYXZlZCBhaXJwb3J0 IGEgc2hvcnQgZGlzdGFuY2UgZnJvbSB0aGUgY2FtcGluZyBzaXRlcywgcmVudCBhIGNhciBhbmQg dHJhdmVsIHRvIHRoZSBjYW1wc2l0ZS4gT2YgY291cnNlIHRoZSBvdGhlciBvcHRpb24gaXMgZmxp Z2h0IGludG8gdGhlIGNhbXBpbmcgYXJlYSBkaXJlY3RseS4gV2l0aCB0aGUgYmFja3NlYXRzIHJl bW92ZWQgd2Ugc2hvdWxkIGhhdmUgYWJvdXQgMzUwIHBvdW5kcyBmb3IgdGVudHMsIHN1cHBsaWVz LCBzbGVlcGluZyBiYWdzIGV0Yy4gRG9lcyBhbnlvbmUga25vdyBvZiBnb29kIHNpdGVzIGZvciBm bHkgaW4gY2FtcGluZyAoaW4gdGhlIFdlc3QpIGFuZC9vciBncm91cHMgdGhhdCBjYW1wIHRvZ2V0 aGVyPwoKwqAKCkRhdmlkCgoKCiAJClRoaXMgZW1haWwgaGFzIGJlZW4gY2hlY2tlZCBmb3Igdmly dXNlcyBieSBBdmFzdCBhbnRpdmlydXMgc29mdHdhcmUuIAp3d3cuYXZhc3QuY29tCgoK ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: For Sale, Aero-Tow's Lil Sherman tug
Date: Jan 05, 2017
Used but looks new as it sat in a hangar unused for a few years. New batteries just installed. Tug forks lengthened to fit any RV nose gear with nose fairing installed, including RV-10 and RV-14. Here is a link for the product. I can tell you this is no toy. It will move any RV or twin for that matter: http://www.aero-tow.com/LilSherman.html The unit list new for $2950. This one is on sale for $2000 plus shipping. Being sold as the RV-14 builder got a good deal on it, but will not need it after he moves. Carl ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 05, 2017
From: Randall Gourley <flyindoorman(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: For Sale, Aero-Tow's Lil Sherman tug
Where is it located? Randy Gourley This (https://itunes.apple.com/app/apple-store/id922793622?pt=814382&mt=8&ct=how_i_email) is how I Email now > > On Jan 5, 2017 at 12:33 PM, wrote: > > > > Used but looks new as it sat in a hangar unused for a few years. New > batteries just installed. Tug forks lengthened to fit any RV nose gear with > nose fairing installed, including RV-10 and RV-14. > > Here is a link for the product. I can tell you this is no toy. It will > move any RV or twin for that matter: http://www.aero-tow.com/LilSherman.html > > The unit list new for $2950. This one is on sale for $2000 plus shipping. > Being sold as the RV-14 builder got a good deal on it, but will not need it > after he moves. > > Carl > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: For Sale, Aero-Tow's Lil Sherman tug
Date: Jan 05, 2017
3N6 ( Old Bridge NJ). Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randall Gourley Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 2:43 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: For Sale, Aero-Tow's Lil Sherman tug Where is it located? Randy Gourley This is how I Email now On Jan 5, 2017 at 12:33 PM, > wrote: Used but looks new as it sat in a hangar unused for a few years. New batteries just installed. Tug forks lengthened to fit any RV nose gear with nose fairing installed, including RV-10 and RV-14. Here is a link for the product. I can tell you this is no toy. It will move any RV or twin for that matter: http://www.aero-tow.com/LilSherman.html The unit list new for $2950. This one is on sale for $2000 plus shipping. Being sold as the RV-14 builder got a good deal on it, but will not need it after he moves. Carl ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: camping in the 10
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Jan 05, 2017
Interested in the total solar eclipse on August 21? Camping is available at John Day (Grant Co), OR. But parking is very limited, you'll need to call the airport now to reserve a tie down spot. And be prepared for sticker shock ($100 parking spot, $165 for a tent spot). In CA Georgetown also has camping. But Columbia remains our favorite, especially if summer theater is running that night. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=464765#464765 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David" <dlm34077(at)cox.net>
Subject: N122WK
Date: Jan 06, 2017
Final report of this seems to be complete. Check NTSB. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: camping in the 10
From: "bruceflys" <bruceflys(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 06, 2017
The State of Idaho has made a sustained effort over decades to maintain backcountry airstrips for air tourists, campers, hunters, etc. See this website for details of them : https://idahoaviation.com/idahoAirstripNetwork.php Many of the airstrips are suitable for an RV-10. One of my favorites is Johnson Creek with a developed campground, firewood and flush toilets. The turf landing is irrigated and mown. I took a Twin Comanche into it with no problems. Still, this is mountain flying. If you have no experience, stop by McCall Aviation for instruction first. They specialize in teaching flatlanders. -------- RV-10 UC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=464771#464771 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: transition
Date: Jan 11, 2017
Bob, Hey Bob, I just wanted to give you a big thanks on something. Both your encouragement, and the encouragement of the CFI at my local Airport who did my BFR were instrumental in swaying me. I had always wanted to Do my commercial and CFI, but saw no purpose because we can't operate our RV's commercially. But the teaching my Daughter changed that significantly. The fact that it would be fun to be a CFI among other many good things, Made it a worthwhile goal. So, I set out in November to start and finish my commercial which I did On 11/21/16. I then dove right in to the CFI and by 11/26 and 12/6 I passed the FOI, FIA, and AGI for my Instructor course. I then headed to the FSDO and got my AGI which I immediately used to endorse my daughters written prep. (She had studied for her private while I did my commercial). She headed over To the testing facility (at 15 years old) and got a 92% on her private. Makes a father proud that's for sure! So dad got to sign her off. I took a break for Christmas, but last week I came down here to Florida for weather more conducive to finishing the CFI. Yesterday, I failed my CFI oral. I'll admit it. Failed. Why? Because I was asked to not just describe how a constant speed propeller works, but to diagram and draw the whole propeller and governor system I detail enough to illustrate the functional parts of the governor and propeller and how it all works and moves, and talk about the differences between a single and a twin. It was a bit crushing...but I took my lumps and learned it and within an hour I had it drawn twice. Not to mention I woke up at 3:30 on 3.5 hours sleep with regs and crap on my mind, it was a stressful day. Got signed off for the re-training and re-applied for the CFI. Today I woke up at 4, and decided I had probably re-learn my E6B just in case. (Digitals are way cooler, but the E6B is like artwork.) Then I headed to the airport for my re-take. I'm sitting here now, ready for an evening of whiskey shots...holding a paper CFI certificate in my folder. It was one of the harder things I've done, but today it feels worth while! Thanks again because you should know that the email you sent....the one that I'm replying to, played a role in this. Today I am a CFI. My next fight will NOT be without my daughter in the left seat. And *I* will be the poor CFI who gives up his Memorial Day weekend to solo his student on her 16th birthday....in an airplane that she helped build...N14YT. Damn...teared up writing that. Tim Olson CFI ASEL > On Oct 21, 2016, at 12:47 AM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > Tim, > Ever consider getting your com/cfi? You'd have to rent an RG for some of it, but, given your daughter needs 20 hrs dual, the net cost might not be that great. > Bob > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461500#461500 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Adam Bezanson <adam.bezanson(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 11, 2017
Subject: Re: transition
Congrats, Tim! Sounds like a lot of stuff to accomplish in such a short time. Well done! I bet the feeling you'll have when you're able to sign her off for her solo and checkride will be even more fulfilling. On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > Bob, > > Hey Bob, I just wanted to give you a big thanks on something. > Both your encouragement, and the encouragement of the CFI at my local > Airport who did my BFR were instrumental in swaying me. I had always > wanted to > Do my commercial and CFI, but saw no purpose because we can't operate our > RV's commercially. But the teaching my Daughter changed that > significantly. > The fact that it would be fun to be a CFI among other many good things, > Made it a worthwhile goal. > > So, I set out in November to start and finish my commercial which I did > On 11/21/16. > > I then dove right in to the CFI and by 11/26 and 12/6 I passed the > FOI, FIA, and AGI for my Instructor course. > > I then headed to the FSDO and got my AGI which I immediately used to > endorse my daughters written prep. (She had studied for her private while I > did my commercial). She headed over > To the testing facility (at 15 years old) and got a 92% on her private. > Makes a father proud that's for sure! So dad got to sign her off. > > I took a break for Christmas, but last week I came down here to Florida > for weather more conducive to finishing the CFI. > > Yesterday, I failed my CFI oral. I'll admit it. Failed. Why? Because I > was asked to not just describe how a constant speed propeller works, but to > diagram and draw the whole propeller and governor system I detail enough to > illustrate the functional parts of the governor and propeller and how it > all works and moves, and talk about the differences between a single and a > twin. It was a bit crushing...but I took my lumps and learned it and > within an hour I had it drawn twice. Not to mention I woke up at 3:30 on > 3.5 hours sleep with regs and crap on my mind, it was a stressful day. Got > signed off for the re-training and re-applied for the CFI. > > Today I woke up at 4, and decided I had probably re-learn my E6B just in > case. (Digitals are way cooler, but the E6B is like artwork.) > > Then I headed to the airport for my re-take. > > I'm sitting here now, ready for an evening of whiskey shots...holding a > paper CFI certificate in my folder. > > It was one of the harder things I've done, but today it feels worth > while! Thanks again because you should know that the email you sent....the > one that I'm replying to, played a role in this. > > Today I am a CFI. My next fight will NOT be without my daughter in the > left seat. And *I* will be the poor CFI who gives up his Memorial Day > weekend to solo his student on her 16th birthday....in an airplane that she > helped build...N14YT. Damn...teared up writing that. > > Tim Olson > CFI ASEL > > > > On Oct 21, 2016, at 12:47 AM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > > > > Tim, > > Ever consider getting your com/cfi? You'd have to rent an RG for some of > it, but, given your daughter needs 20 hrs dual, the net cost might not be > that great. > > Bob > > > > -------- > > Bob Turner > > RV-10 QB > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461500#461500 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Condrey <condreyb(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 11, 2017
Subject: Re: transition
Congratulations Tim!!! Bob On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:23 PM Tim Olson wrote: > > > Bob, > > > Hey Bob, I just wanted to give you a big thanks on something. > > Both your encouragement, and the encouragement of the CFI at my local > > Airport who did my BFR were instrumental in swaying me. I had always > wanted to > > Do my commercial and CFI, but saw no purpose because we can't operate our > > RV's commercially. But the teaching my Daughter changed that > significantly. > > The fact that it would be fun to be a CFI among other many good things, > > Made it a worthwhile goal. > > > So, I set out in November to start and finish my commercial which I did > > On 11/21/16. > > > I then dove right in to the CFI and by 11/26 and 12/6 I passed the > > FOI, FIA, and AGI for my Instructor course. > > > I then headed to the FSDO and got my AGI which I immediately used to > endorse my daughters written prep. (She had studied for her private while I > did my commercial). She headed over > > To the testing facility (at 15 years old) and got a 92% on her private. > Makes a father proud that's for sure! So dad got to sign her off. > > > I took a break for Christmas, but last week I came down here to Florida > for weather more conducive to finishing the CFI. > > > Yesterday, I failed my CFI oral. I'll admit it. Failed. Why? Because I > was asked to not just describe how a constant speed propeller works, but to > diagram and draw the whole propeller and governor system I detail enough to > illustrate the functional parts of the governor and propeller and how it > all works and moves, and talk about the differences between a single and a > twin. It was a bit crushing...but I took my lumps and learned it and > within an hour I had it drawn twice. Not to mention I woke up at 3:30 on > 3.5 hours sleep with regs and crap on my mind, it was a stressful day. Got > signed off for the re-training and re-applied for the CFI. > > > Today I woke up at 4, and decided I had probably re-learn my E6B just in > case. (Digitals are way cooler, but the E6B is like artwork.) > > > Then I headed to the airport for my re-take. > > > I'm sitting here now, ready for an evening of whiskey shots...holding a > paper CFI certificate in my folder. > > > It was one of the harder things I've done, but today it feels worth > while! Thanks again because you should know that the email you sent....the > one that I'm replying to, played a role in this. > > > Today I am a CFI. My next fight will NOT be without my daughter in the > left seat. And *I* will be the poor CFI who gives up his Memorial Day > weekend to solo his student on her 16th birthday....in an airplane that she > helped build...N14YT. Damn...teared up writing that. > > > Tim Olson > > CFI ASEL > > > > On Oct 21, 2016, at 12:47 AM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > Ever consider getting your com/cfi? You'd have to rent an RG for some of > it, but, given your daughter needs 20 hrs dual, the net cost might not be > that great. > > > Bob > > > > > > -------- > > > Bob Turner > > > RV-10 QB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461500#461500 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Berck E. Nash" <flyboy(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 11, 2017
Subject: Re: transition
> > Today I am a CFI. My next fight will NOT be without my daughter in the > left seat. And *I* will be the poor CFI who gives up his Memorial Day > weekend to solo his student on her 16th birthday....in an airplane that she > helped build...N14YT. Damn...teared up writing that. Congratulations! That's excellent. The CFI can be brutal. First time pass rate nationwide is very, very low. I flunked my CFI ride in about 3 minutes the first time. We started in the pattern, and the first landing requested: "Demonstrate a power-off 180 approach landing." Sure, no problem. I demonstrated it, aiming for the 1,000 foot markers. I was 50 feet short. PTS is +200/-0. And that was that. "You've failed to complete a task within the required standards, would you like to continue?" Nope. I pulled the power, taxiied in and collected my pink slip. As you go through this, I'd love to see you blog tips for teaching family/friends. I've taught a lot of folks to fly, but I know that teaching family can be tough. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Maib <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Jan 11, 2017
Subject: Re: transition
Congrats Tim! You won't regret getting that CFI! CFII next? David Maib > On Jan 11, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > Bob, > > Hey Bob, I just wanted to give you a big thanks on something. > Both your encouragement, and the encouragement of the CFI at my local > Airport who did my BFR were instrumental in swaying me. I had always wanted to > Do my commercial and CFI, but saw no purpose because we can't operate our > RV's commercially. But the teaching my Daughter changed that significantly. > The fact that it would be fun to be a CFI among other many good things, > Made it a worthwhile goal. > > So, I set out in November to start and finish my commercial which I did > On 11/21/16. > > I then dove right in to the CFI and by 11/26 and 12/6 I passed the > FOI, FIA, and AGI for my Instructor course. > > I then headed to the FSDO and got my AGI which I immediately used to endorse my daughters written prep. (She had studied for her private while I did my commercial). She headed over > To the testing facility (at 15 years old) and got a 92% on her private. Makes a father proud that's for sure! So dad got to sign her off. > > I took a break for Christmas, but last week I came down here to Florida for weather more conducive to finishing the CFI. > > Yesterday, I failed my CFI oral. I'll admit it. Failed. Why? Because I was asked to not just describe how a constant speed propeller works, but to diagram and draw the whole propeller and governor system I detail enough to illustrate the functional parts of the governor and propeller and how it all works and moves, and talk about the differences between a single and a twin. It was a bit crushing...but I took my lumps and learned it and within an hour I had it drawn twice. Not to mention I woke up at 3:30 on 3.5 hours sleep with regs and crap on my mind, it was a stressful day. Got signed off for the re-training and re-applied for the CFI. > > Today I woke up at 4, and decided I had probably re-learn my E6B just in case. (Digitals are way cooler, but the E6B is like artwork.) > > Then I headed to the airport for my re-take. > > I'm sitting here now, ready for an evening of whiskey shots...holding a paper CFI certificate in my folder. > > It was one of the harder things I've done, but today it feels worth while! Thanks again because you should know that the email you sent....the one that I'm replying to, played a role in this. > > Today I am a CFI. My next fight will NOT be without my daughter in the left seat. And *I* will be the poor CFI who gives up his Memorial Day weekend to solo his student on her 16th birthday....in an airplane that she helped build...N14YT. Damn...teared up writing that. > > Tim Olson > CFI ASEL > > > > > > >> On Oct 21, 2016, at 12:47 AM, Bob Turner wrote: >> >> >> Tim, >> Ever consider getting your com/cfi? You'd have to rent an RG for some of it, but, given your daughter needs 20 hrs dual, the net cost might not be that great. >> Bob >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461500#461500 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ed Kranz <ed.kranz(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 11, 2017
Subject: Re: transition
Congrats Tim!!! On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:01 PM, David Maib wrote: > > Congrats Tim! You won't regret getting that CFI! CFII next? > > David Maib > > > > On Jan 11, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > > > > Bob, > > > > Hey Bob, I just wanted to give you a big thanks on something. > > Both your encouragement, and the encouragement of the CFI at my local > > Airport who did my BFR were instrumental in swaying me. I had always > wanted to > > Do my commercial and CFI, but saw no purpose because we can't operate our > > RV's commercially. But the teaching my Daughter changed that > significantly. > > The fact that it would be fun to be a CFI among other many good things, > > Made it a worthwhile goal. > > > > So, I set out in November to start and finish my commercial which I did > > On 11/21/16. > > > > I then dove right in to the CFI and by 11/26 and 12/6 I passed the > > FOI, FIA, and AGI for my Instructor course. > > > > I then headed to the FSDO and got my AGI which I immediately used to > endorse my daughters written prep. (She had studied for her private while I > did my commercial). She headed over > > To the testing facility (at 15 years old) and got a 92% on her private. > Makes a father proud that's for sure! So dad got to sign her off. > > > > I took a break for Christmas, but last week I came down here to Florida > for weather more conducive to finishing the CFI. > > > > Yesterday, I failed my CFI oral. I'll admit it. Failed. Why? Because > I was asked to not just describe how a constant speed propeller works, but > to diagram and draw the whole propeller and governor system I detail enough > to illustrate the functional parts of the governor and propeller and how it > all works and moves, and talk about the differences between a single and a > twin. It was a bit crushing...but I took my lumps and learned it and > within an hour I had it drawn twice. Not to mention I woke up at 3:30 on > 3.5 hours sleep with regs and crap on my mind, it was a stressful day. Got > signed off for the re-training and re-applied for the CFI. > > > > Today I woke up at 4, and decided I had probably re-learn my E6B just in > case. (Digitals are way cooler, but the E6B is like artwork.) > > > > Then I headed to the airport for my re-take. > > > > I'm sitting here now, ready for an evening of whiskey shots...holding a > paper CFI certificate in my folder. > > > > It was one of the harder things I've done, but today it feels worth > while! Thanks again because you should know that the email you sent....the > one that I'm replying to, played a role in this. > > > > Today I am a CFI. My next fight will NOT be without my daughter in the > left seat. And *I* will be the poor CFI who gives up his Memorial Day > weekend to solo his student on her 16th birthday....in an airplane that she > helped build...N14YT. Damn...teared up writing that. > > > > Tim Olson > > CFI ASEL > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Oct 21, 2016, at 12:47 AM, Bob Turner > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Tim, > >> Ever consider getting your com/cfi? You'd have to rent an RG for some > of it, but, given your daughter needs 20 hrs dual, the net cost might not > be that great. > >> Bob > >> > >> -------- > >> Bob Turner > >> RV-10 QB > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Read this topic online here: > >> > >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461500#461500 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Jan 11, 2017
Subject: Re: transition
That's awesome, Tim! That just got me rethinking of doing that. I had put the idea away, but now I might just go ahead with it. I've got a bunch of people to solo as they come of age. :-) First training flight up to X35 sounds like a good idea to me if you are still in FL. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad > On Jan 11, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > Bob, > > Hey Bob, I just wanted to give you a big thanks on something. > Both your encouragement, and the encouragement of the CFI at my local > Airport who did my BFR were instrumental in swaying me. I had always wanted to > Do my commercial and CFI, but saw no purpose because we can't operate our > RV's commercially. But the teaching my Daughter changed that significantly. > The fact that it would be fun to be a CFI among other many good things, > Made it a worthwhile goal. > > So, I set out in November to start and finish my commercial which I did > On 11/21/16. > > I then dove right in to the CFI and by 11/26 and 12/6 I passed the > FOI, FIA, and AGI for my Instructor course. > > I then headed to the FSDO and got my AGI which I immediately used to endorse my daughters written prep. (She had studied for her private while I did my commercial). She headed over > To the testing facility (at 15 years old) and got a 92% on her private. Makes a father proud that's for sure! So dad got to sign her off. > > I took a break for Christmas, but last week I came down here to Florida for weather more conducive to finishing the CFI. > > Yesterday, I failed my CFI oral. I'll admit it. Failed. Why? Because I was asked to not just describe how a constant speed propeller works, but to diagram and draw the whole propeller and governor system I detail enough to illustrate the functional parts of the governor and propeller and how it all works and moves, and talk about the differences between a single and a twin. It was a bit crushing...but I took my lumps and learned it and within an hour I had it drawn twice. Not to mention I woke up at 3:30 on 3.5 hours sleep with regs and crap on my mind, it was a stressful day. Got signed off for the re-training and re-applied for the CFI. > > Today I woke up at 4, and decided I had probably re-learn my E6B just in case. (Digitals are way cooler, but the E6B is like artwork.) > > Then I headed to the airport for my re-take. > > I'm sitting here now, ready for an evening of whiskey shots...holding a paper CFI certificate in my folder. > > It was one of the harder things I've done, but today it feels worth while! Thanks again because you should know that the email you sent....the one that I'm replying to, played a role in this. > > Today I am a CFI. My next fight will NOT be without my daughter in the left seat. And *I* will be the poor CFI who gives up his Memorial Day weekend to solo his student on her 16th birthday....in an airplane that she helped build...N14YT. Damn...teared up writing that. > > Tim Olson > CFI ASEL > > > > > > >> On Oct 21, 2016, at 12:47 AM, Bob Turner wrote: >> >> >> Tim, >> Ever consider getting your com/cfi? You'd have to rent an RG for some of it, but, given your daughter needs 20 hrs dual, the net cost might not be that great. >> Bob >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461500#461500 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: transition
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Jan 11, 2017
Thanks for all of the replies guys. Don't feel like you have to reply to the thread just to say thanks. I know, it's a given. I hate to clutter your inboxes with my drivel. :) This one was too juicy to not reply to though.....the failure rate. After failing, I started googling, I guess the fail rate down here is something like 40-80%, and I've read that some FSDO areas are even higher. My examiner actually failed his way back when, too. So it's pretty common, but pretty heartbreaking too. I actually was OK with it because my daughter was very frustrated with her 92% written, and seeing me fail something is good...it shows her that you don't always have to hit the top mark. I have a bit of a problem with that in my family, as the grades are consistent A's...and always have been, with them. And I think it's time that they begin to accept that they will not always perform to that level. I certainly don't expect that of myself. So for that, I'm glad it happened the way it did. I really can't believe how much some of these professional CFI's have to know and keep track of. I thought it was impossible to be as good on the stick AND the books, and know that much, but one of my 2 CFI's that signed me off proved me wrong. He could fly 5X more accurately and consistently than me. He could also repeat back systems and regs 10x better. So apparently if you do it for 5000 hours (he's way over that), you can get pretty smart. I'm not there yet. ;) I don't have any idea what path I'll take. I'm sure some day I'm going to do CFI-I. I actually think I'd like to finish that within about 1.5 years so that I can get my daughter going on Instrument training. There's a small chance maybe that I'll get into transition training on the RV-10/14 just for fun. I don't know the costs for that sort of thing, nor the effort it would take. Whatever it is, I can't do it if it costs ME money...I'm way past broke right now. I may not use the CFI a ton, but I would eventually forsee doing it as a retirement gig. Also, one of our local instructors is a snowbird who travels south every winter...so since I really don't care to teach when the kids are out for the summer, maybe I can work opposite him and do things in the winter. I'm sure I'll take on people here and there, and once the kids are out of the house (one is out this coming fall...sheesh, where did the time go?) I will take the time to teach quite a bit. David, if you get time, shoot me an email offline on how tough it is to get your LODA to do that transition training. I'm pretty tired today so it's not yet on my priority list, but I definitely would like to be beneficial to the RV community. And for those who like write-ups, yes, I'm sure I'll be filling my website (probably MyRV14.com, but not sure) with stuff about teaching my girl. Right now that's about the biggest thing this old guy has on his mind. :) Thanks everyone. Again though, don't feel like you have to congratulate me. I'm not fishing for it. I just really wanted to thank Bob. :) I'm also thrilled to hear from other people who did the CFI like Berck...either offline or however you want. I like reading the stories you all have as well. OH, and before I forget to tell you this: For the commercial... you have to have 10 hours DUAL in a retract. I had plenty of retract time, but only 9.3 dual. So I did my first commercial lesson in an Arrow III for 1.8 hours. It was disgusting. After flying RV's for over 1300 hours, it really just plain sucked. Horribly organized panel, and handles like a moving truck. If you go for the commercial, and don't have dual retract time, you're going to have to suck it up. But, once I saw how much nicer it was to fly the RV-10, I did the rest of my practice (only took like 4 more hours or so) in the RV-10, and then went for my checkride...using the RV-10. I couldn't believe my 80-something year old examiner was even willing to. But that was nice. Then, you do have to fly a retract for them, so I rented their 172RG and went out for a couple maneuvers and procedures and a landing and that was that. For the CFI, you can't split it up like that. You have to do the whole ride in a retract. That was the worst thing about the flying portion of this. Worse than learning to fly Right seat. Heck, I'm pretty good at right seat now. :) But flying the Arrow II down here was again, not nearly as nice as an RV-10. Yes, you can get it to be halfway comfortable, but it was probably a big hinderance for me to have been used to GOOD airplanes. So, if you think that some day you may want to do your CFI, or your commercial for that matter, maybe do this to do yourself a favor. When it's time for your next BFR, do it in a retract. Get a complex endorsement and log some hours. They won't hurt you when you want a rating. I may even take my daughter out and rent the arrow II, just to show her how miserable it is, but get her complex signed off. It's another open door once you do. For that matter, the Dual in the piper Navajo that I did in Hawaii....sightseeing with Multi-instruction on it, also added to my time required for dual-complex, for commercial. So every airplane you fly can help. Tim On 1/11/2017 1:00 PM, Berck E. Nash wrote: > Today I am a CFI. My next fight will NOT be without my daughter in > the left seat. And *I* will be the poor CFI who gives up his > Memorial Day weekend to solo his student on her 16th birthday....in > an airplane that she helped build...N14YT. Damn...teared up writing > that. > > > Congratulations! That's excellent. > > The CFI can be brutal. First time pass rate nationwide is very, very > low. I flunked my CFI ride in about 3 minutes the first time. We > started in the pattern, and the first landing requested: "Demonstrate a > power-off 180 approach landing." Sure, no problem. I demonstrated it, > aiming for the 1,000 foot markers. I was 50 feet short. PTS is > +200/-0. And that was that. "You've failed to complete a task within > the required standards, would you like to continue?" Nope. I pulled > the power, taxiied in and collected my pink slip. > > As you go through this, I'd love to see you blog tips for teaching > family/friends. I've taught a lot of folks to fly, but I know that > teaching family can be tough. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 11, 2017
Subject: Re: transition
Congrats Tim! On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > Bob, > > Hey Bob, I just wanted to give you a big thanks on something. > Both your encouragement, and the encouragement of the CFI at my local > Airport who did my BFR were instrumental in swaying me. I had always > wanted to > Do my commercial and CFI, but saw no purpose because we can't operate our > RV's commercially. But the teaching my Daughter changed that > significantly. > The fact that it would be fun to be a CFI among other many good things, > Made it a worthwhile goal. > > So, I set out in November to start and finish my commercial which I did > On 11/21/16. > > I then dove right in to the CFI and by 11/26 and 12/6 I passed the > FOI, FIA, and AGI for my Instructor course. > > I then headed to the FSDO and got my AGI which I immediately used to > endorse my daughters written prep. (She had studied for her private while I > did my commercial). She headed over > To the testing facility (at 15 years old) and got a 92% on her private. > Makes a father proud that's for sure! So dad got to sign her off. > > I took a break for Christmas, but last week I came down here to Florida > for weather more conducive to finishing the CFI. > > Yesterday, I failed my CFI oral. I'll admit it. Failed. Why? Because I > was asked to not just describe how a constant speed propeller works, but to > diagram and draw the whole propeller and governor system I detail enough to > illustrate the functional parts of the governor and propeller and how it > all works and moves, and talk about the differences between a single and a > twin. It was a bit crushing...but I took my lumps and learned it and > within an hour I had it drawn twice. Not to mention I woke up at 3:30 on > 3.5 hours sleep with regs and crap on my mind, it was a stressful day. Got > signed off for the re-training and re-applied for the CFI. > > Today I woke up at 4, and decided I had probably re-learn my E6B just in > case. (Digitals are way cooler, but the E6B is like artwork.) > > Then I headed to the airport for my re-take. > > I'm sitting here now, ready for an evening of whiskey shots...holding a > paper CFI certificate in my folder. > > It was one of the harder things I've done, but today it feels worth > while! Thanks again because you should know that the email you sent....the > one that I'm replying to, played a role in this. > > Today I am a CFI. My next fight will NOT be without my daughter in the > left seat. And *I* will be the poor CFI who gives up his Memorial Day > weekend to solo his student on her 16th birthday....in an airplane that she > helped build...N14YT. Damn...teared up writing that. > > Tim Olson > CFI ASEL > > > > On Oct 21, 2016, at 12:47 AM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > > > > Tim, > > Ever consider getting your com/cfi? You'd have to rent an RG for some of > it, but, given your daughter needs 20 hrs dual, the net cost might not be > that great. > > Bob > > > > -------- > > Bob Turner > > RV-10 QB > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461500#461500 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: transition
From: Gary Specketer <gspecketer(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 11, 2017
Congrats Gary > On Jan 11, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > Bob, > > Hey Bob, I just wanted to give you a big thanks on something. > Both your encouragement, and the encouragement of the CFI at my local > Airport who did my BFR were instrumental in swaying me. I had always wanted to > Do my commercial and CFI, but saw no purpose because we can't operate our > RV's commercially. But the teaching my Daughter changed that significantly. > The fact that it would be fun to be a CFI among other many good things, > Made it a worthwhile goal. > > So, I set out in November to start and finish my commercial which I did > On 11/21/16. > > I then dove right in to the CFI and by 11/26 and 12/6 I passed the > FOI, FIA, and AGI for my Instructor course. > > I then headed to the FSDO and got my AGI which I immediately used to endorse my daughters written prep. (She had studied for her private while I did my commercial). She headed over > To the testing facility (at 15 years old) and got a 92% on her private. Makes a father proud that's for sure! So dad got to sign her off. > > I took a break for Christmas, but last week I came down here to Florida for weather more conducive to finishing the CFI. > > Yesterday, I failed my CFI oral. I'll admit it. Failed. Why? Because I was asked to not just describe how a constant speed propeller works, but to diagram and draw the whole propeller and governor system I detail enough to illustrate the functional parts of the governor and propeller and how it all works and moves, and talk about the differences between a single and a twin. It was a bit crushing...but I took my lumps and learned it and within an hour I had it drawn twice. Not to mention I woke up at 3:30 on 3.5 hours sleep with regs and crap on my mind, it was a stressful day. Got signed off for the re-training and re-applied for the CFI. > > Today I woke up at 4, and decided I had probably re-learn my E6B just in case. (Digitals are way cooler, but the E6B is like artwork.) > > Then I headed to the airport for my re-take. > > I'm sitting here now, ready for an evening of whiskey shots...holding a paper CFI certificate in my folder. > > It was one of the harder things I've done, but today it feels worth while! Thanks again because you should know that the email you sent....the one that I'm replying to, played a role in this. > > Today I am a CFI. My next fight will NOT be without my daughter in the left seat. And *I* will be the poor CFI who gives up his Memorial Day weekend to solo his student on her 16th birthday....in an airplane that she helped build...N14YT. Damn...teared up writing that. > > Tim Olson > CFI ASEL > > > > > > >> On Oct 21, 2016, at 12:47 AM, Bob Turner wrote: >> >> >> Tim, >> Ever consider getting your com/cfi? You'd have to rent an RG for some of it, but, given your daughter needs 20 hrs dual, the net cost might not be that great. >> Bob >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461500#461500 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: transition
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Jan 11, 2017
Congratulations Tim! And, thanks for the thanks. Don't feel bad about needing two tries - it's very common. I also took two tries, although I didn't fail anything. After I passed my 5 hour oral, another inspector came in with the (rented, RG) aircraft logbooks. He couldn't find a sign off for a particular AD, so he gave me a 'discontinuance', and a ferry permit, and told me to reschedule the flight test. The good news is that you can do the cfii in your RV. And it re-sets the two year clock, so a year or year and a half is about right. I'm pretty sure I have all my paperwork for the transition training LODA in a folder on the home computer. Let me know if you'd like it and I'll email it. The only issue with transition training is insurance. Your regular policy won't cover it, and the cost of one that will is hard to justify. I currently have $1,000,000 CSL plus hull for under $2K, but they don't want the bother of adding other named insureds, so I am currently not doing transition training. Finally, as I'm sure you know, the trick you need to figure out for each plane you instruct in, is how far wrong you can let a student get before you absolutely have to intervene! It's actually pretty impressive what horrible configurations you can recover a 152 from! Good Luck, Bob -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=464999#464999 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: transition
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Jan 11, 2017
One more thing: Have you thought about your medical? If you want to use your commercial you'll need a second class. I have previously gotten a second class but only every 2 years, so I had a 50-50 chance of having a valid second class if a commercial opportunity came along. In 30 years it happened just once - I was hired to ferry a 182 from CA to Wisconsin. Now, with medical reform and just needing a physical every 4 years, I probably will let the class two be a thing of the past. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465000#465000 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: transition
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
Congrat Tim! Another great writeup for inspiring others! Cheers Werner On 11.01.2017 19:20, Tim Olson wrote: > > Bob, > > Hey Bob, I just wanted to give you a big thanks on something. > Both your encouragement, and the encouragement of the CFI at my local > Airport who did my BFR were instrumental in swaying me. I had always wanted to > Do my commercial and CFI, but saw no purpose because we can't operate our > RV's commercially. But the teaching my Daughter changed that significantly. > The fact that it would be fun to be a CFI among other many good things, > Made it a worthwhile goal. > > So, I set out in November to start and finish my commercial which I did > On 11/21/16. > > I then dove right in to the CFI and by 11/26 and 12/6 I passed the > FOI, FIA, and AGI for my Instructor course. > > I then headed to the FSDO and got my AGI which I immediately used to endorse my daughters written prep. (She had studied for her private while I did my commercial). She headed over > To the testing facility (at 15 years old) and got a 92% on her private. Makes a father proud that's for sure! So dad got to sign her off. > > I took a break for Christmas, but last week I came down here to Florida for weather more conducive to finishing the CFI. > > Yesterday, I failed my CFI oral. I'll admit it. Failed. Why? Because I was asked to not just describe how a constant speed propeller works, but to diagram and draw the whole propeller and governor system I detail enough to illustrate the functional parts of the governor and propeller and how it all works and moves, and talk about the differences between a single and a twin. It was a bit crushing...but I took my lumps and learned it and within an hour I had it drawn twice. Not to mention I woke up at 3:30 on 3.5 hours sleep with regs and crap on my mind, it was a stressful day. Got signed off for the re-training and re-applied for the CFI. > > Today I woke up at 4, and decided I had probably re-learn my E6B just in case. (Digitals are way cooler, but the E6B is like artwork.) > > Then I headed to the airport for my re-take. > > I'm sitting here now, ready for an evening of whiskey shots...holding a paper CFI certificate in my folder. > > It was one of the harder things I've done, but today it feels worth while! Thanks again because you should know that the email you sent....the one that I'm replying to, played a role in this. > > Today I am a CFI. My next fight will NOT be without my daughter in the left seat. And *I* will be the poor CFI who gives up his Memorial Day weekend to solo his student on her 16th birthday....in an airplane that she helped build...N14YT. Damn...teared up writing that. > > Tim Olson > CFI ASEL > > >> On Oct 21, 2016, at 12:47 AM, Bob Turner wrote: >> >> >> Tim, >> Ever consider getting your com/cfi? You'd have to rent an RG for some of it, but, given your daughter needs 20 hrs dual, the net cost might not be that great. >> Bob >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461500#461500 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: transition
Date: Jan 12, 2017
Yeah, I just got a new class 2, but I don't know what I'll do in the future. I probably will just continue with class 2's every 2 years and letting them fall to class 3's as I have been. While the new medical thing is a benefit for some, it's still unclear what that means for insurance companies. And I personally have not seen the medical process as a major issue. The price I have paid is reasonable and it has forced me to get a physical every 2 years which is not a bad idea anyway. Personally I think that while the new process may help a few people, it does nothing worthwhile for me. My AME is friendly, 2 miles from the airport, and always gives me good health advice that I very poorly follow. And for some under 40 people, just the fact that the medical can be good for 5 years will save them money to go on the regular class 3 plan. The new system doesn't really exempt them from being evaluated to the same standard, and failing to be signed off, as far as I can tell. I may help some people logistically though. Really, the only thing that would have made a huge difference is doing it like a sport pilot is required to today. The other thing is, from everything I've heard, the second class and 3rd are basically evaluated to the same standard, so why NOT go the second class route? I see no down side so I've done it for years just in case I got my commercial. Maybe as I age I'll find reason to change, but creeping up on 50 I'm ok with either process today. My big head scratcher is why the old slippery finger test is required for a flight physical... Who cares if I have prostate cancer if I am otherwise healthy. ;). But I bend over and take it because it has run in my family in a grandfather so I even now get PSA tests occasionally....it may be good to know. Anyway, it's a chuckle because the AME always calls it "the complimentary prostate exam". He's always good for a laugh and a few flying stories. His personal view on the new medical reform is that it will actually require MORE cost, paperwork, time, and effort on many applicants because today all I have to do is fill in one form by re-entering the same stuff that was on my last one (which he gives me a pdf of) and adding anything new. Then i just go see him. No webinar to watch and when was under 40 it was only every 5 months. So the only thing the new process does is double my visit interval to 4 years (it was 4 years, right) but requires other effort every 2. And at 48 I should probably see a doctor more regularly than 4 years. Not that the new process is that bad...I just don't see it as a huge leap forward. Time will tell how the physicians and insurance industry take it. One thing for sure....if it reduces the financial situation and people no longer choose to be an AME because the effort isn't worth the reduced number of patients, that could lead to an AME shortage that will jack up prices for commercial pilots and make AME's harder to get to. We don't need that happening either. Tim > On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > One more thing: Have you thought about your medical? If you want to use your commercial you'll need a second class. I have previously gotten a second class but only every 2 years, so I had a 50-50 chance of having a valid second class if a commercial opportunity came along. In 30 years it happened just once - I was hired to ferry a 182 from CA to Wisconsin. Now, with medical reform and just needing a physical every 4 years, I probably will let the class two be a thing of the past. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465000#465000 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Belue <kdb.rv10(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
Subject: Re: transition
I've never had a prostate exam from an AME - he must like you.... Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 12, 2017, at 3:54 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > Yeah, I just got a new class 2, but I don't know what I'll do in the future. I probably will just continue with class 2's every 2 years and letting them fall to class 3's as I have been. While the new medical thing is a benefit for some, it's still unclear what that means for insurance companies. And I personally have not seen the medical process as a major issue. The price I have paid is reasonable and it has forced me to get a physical every 2 years which is not a bad idea anyway. Personally I think that while the new process may help a few people, it does nothing worthwhile for me. My AME is friendly, 2 miles from the airport, and always gives me good health advice that I very poorly follow. > And for some under 40 people, just the fact that the medical can be good for 5 years will save them money to go on the regular class 3 plan. The new system doesn't really exempt them from being evaluated to the same standard, and failing to be signed off, as far as I can tell. I may help some people logistically though. Really, the only thing that would have made a huge difference is doing it like a sport pilot is required to today. > The other thing is, from everything I've heard, the second class and 3rd are basically evaluated to the same standard, so why NOT go the second class route? I see no down side so I've done it for years just in case I got my commercial. > Maybe as I age I'll find reason to change, but creeping up on 50 I'm ok with either process today. > My big head scratcher is why the old slippery finger test is required for a flight physical... Who cares if I have prostate cancer if I am otherwise healthy. ;). But I bend over and take it because it has run in my family in a grandfather so I even now get PSA tests occasionally....it may be good to know. > Anyway, it's a chuckle because the AME always calls it "the complimentary prostate exam". He's always good for a laugh and a few flying stories. His personal view on the new medical reform is that it will actually require MORE cost, paperwork, time, and effort on many applicants because today all I have to do is fill in one form by re-entering the same stuff that was on my last one (which he gives me a pdf of) and adding anything new. Then i just go see him. No webinar to watch and when was under 40 it was only every 5 months. So the only thing the new process does is double my visit interval to 4 years (it was 4 years, right) but requires other effort every 2. And at 48 I should probably see a doctor more regularly than 4 years. Not that the new process is that bad...I just don't see it as a huge leap forward. Time will tell how the physicians and insurance industry take it. One thing for sure....if it reduces the financial situation and people no longer choose to b! > e an AME because the effort isn't worth the reduced number of patients, that could lead to an AME shortage that will jack up prices for commercial pilots and make AME's harder to get to. We don't need that happening either. > > Tim > > > >> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Bob Turner wrote: >> >> >> One more thing: Have you thought about your medical? If you want to use your commercial you'll need a second class. I have previously gotten a second class but only every 2 years, so I had a 50-50 chance of having a valid second class if a commercial opportunity came along. In 30 years it happened just once - I was hired to ferry a 182 from CA to Wisconsin. Now, with medical reform and just needing a physical every 4 years, I probably will let the class two be a thing of the past. >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465000#465000 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
Subject: Re: transition
Of course there are exceptions to 2nd class medical requirement, specifically certain CFI activities. Some don't even require a valid medical of any kind. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > One more thing: Have you thought about your medical? If you want to use > your commercial you'll need a second class. I have previously gotten a > second class but only every 2 years, so I had a 50-50 chance of having a > valid second class if a commercial opportunity came along. In 30 years it > happened just once - I was hired to ferry a 182 from CA to Wisconsin. Now, > with medical reform and just needing a physical every 4 years, I probably > will let the class two be a thing of the past. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465000#465000 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
Subject: Re: transition
The 2nd class standards for some things are significantly different than 3rd. I don't know all of them, but distant vision is correctable to 20/20 while 3rd is only correctable to 20/40. Working as a controller, a 2nd is required, and at the time I was hired (40 years ago) I had to get a SODA for both vision and hearing. Don't need the SODA's for 3rd class at all. I too used to get 2nd every other year. I stopped because I didn't need 2nd and many AMEs do charge more for 2nd. You can refuse the prostate check...it is not required for FAA. Why some AMEs think they should do it, I don't know. I get PSA with annual non-FAA physical and that is all my primary doc feels is needed. I can assure you that after 50 our bodies are more prone to problems, and passing the FAA exam becomes less and less certain. 18 months ago I needed retina surgery that was an age related issue, and threatened my medical. Fortunately, it and the subsequent cataract surgery adequately restored my vision before my medical was due and could submit a required ophthalmologic report with satisfactory figures. Blood pressure is another very common condition as you age, usually quite manageable with proper medication, but just another supplemental report for the AME. Time will tell, but I do not think the just issued rule will help very many pilots, and is certainly not what was sought by EAA and AOPA in the beginning. The compromises to get the bill passed seriously limited its benefit. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > Yeah, I just got a new class 2, but I don't know what I'll do in the > future. > The other thing is, from everything I've heard, the second class and 3rd > are basically evaluated to the same standard, so why NOT go the second > class route? I see no down side so I've done it for years just in case I > got my commercial. > Maybe as I age I'll find reason to change, but creeping up on 50 I'm ok > with either process today. > My big head scratcher is why the old slippery finger test is required for > a flight physical... Who cares if I have prostate cancer if I am otherwise > healthy. ;). But I bend over and take it because it has run in my family > in a grandfather so I even now get PSA tests occasionally....it may be good > to know. > Anyway, it's a chuckle because the AME always calls it "the complimentary > prostate exam". > > ======================================================= > _ =================================================== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Re: transition
Date: Jan 12, 2017
Tim I agree with what you are saying........for people in perfect health. But, just have your eye doctor tell you that you have ocular hypertension and see what happens. The eye doc called me good, but the FAA made me redo all the testing and then wait three months for my medical based on the favorable (normal) test results I had submitted. My flight doc is my regular doc so I did call him about the eyes and he told me what was needed and that I should start my physical early so I did. 45 days early was not enough.......the FAA needed 90. And as far as a 1 finger wave, he always offers and then reminds me that my PSA looks good. If the underlying standards are not changed and we are still required to meet them, then we really have gained very little. Remember that if you wake up today and are not meeting any of those standard you are not to fly. I was reminded of that by the FAA, the letter, saying I was grounded if any of my conditions changed. 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 Tim Olson Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 2:55 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: transition Yeah, I just got a new class 2, but I don't know what I'll do in the future. I probably will just continue with class 2's every 2 years and letting them fall to class 3's as I have been. While the new medical thing is a benefit for some, it's still unclear what that means for insurance companies. And I personally have not seen the medical process as a major issue. The price I have paid is reasonable and it has forced me to get a physical every 2 years which is not a bad idea anyway. Personally I think that while the new process may help a few people, it does nothing worthwhile for me. My AME is friendly, 2 miles from the airport, and always gives me good health advice that I very poorly follow. And for some under 40 people, just the fact that the medical can be good for 5 years will save them money to go on the regular class 3 plan. The new system doesn't really exempt them from being evaluated to the same standard, and failing to be signed off, as far as I can tell. I may help some people logistically though. Really, the only thing that would have made a huge difference is doing it like a sport pilot is required to today. The other thing is, from everything I've heard, the second class and 3rd are basically evaluated to the same standard, so why NOT go the second class route? I see no down side so I've done it for years just in case I got my commercial. Maybe as I age I'll find reason to change, but creeping up on 50 I'm ok with either process today. My big head scratcher is why the old slippery finger test is required for a flight physical... Who cares if I have prostate cancer if I am otherwise healthy. ;). But I bend over and take it because it has run in my family in a grandfather so I even now get PSA tests occasionally....it may be good to know. Anyway, it's a chuckle because the AME always calls it "the complimentary prostate exam". He's always good for a laugh and a few flying stories. His personal view on the new medical reform is that it will actually require MORE cost, paperwork, time, and effort on many applicants because today all I have to do is fill in one form by re-entering the same stuff that was on my last one (which he gives me a pdf of) and adding anything new. Then i just go see him. No webinar to watch and when was under 40 it was only every 5 months. So the only thing the new process does is double my visit interval to 4 years (it was 4 years, right) but requires other effort every 2. And at 48 I should probably see a doctor more regularly than 4 years. Not that the new process is that bad...I just don't see it as a huge leap forward. Time will tell how the physicians and insurance industry take it. One thing for sure....if it reduces the financial situation and people no longer choose to b! e an AME because the effort isn't worth the reduced number of patients, that could lead to an AME shortage that will jack up prices for commercial pilots and make AME's harder to get to. We don't need that happening either. Tim > On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > One more thing: Have you thought about your medical? If you want to use your commercial you'll need a second class. I have previously gotten a second class but only every 2 years, so I had a 50-50 chance of having a valid second class if a commercial opportunity came along. In 30 years it happened just once - I was hired to ferry a 182 from CA to Wisconsin. Now, with medical reform and just needing a physical every 4 years, I probably will let the class two be a thing of the past. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465000#465000 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: transition
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
Hey Rene', See what you are saying informs and confuses me. I see why that would be nice for you to not have to be restricted by the FAA due to not being able to get a class 1,2,3 medical. But, like you also said, if the underlying standards are not changed, you didn't really gain anything. I really right now think that from what I've heard from my AME, the standards are such that they really aren't any different. If that's true, then what we see as a benefit is really not that much of a benefit. The biggest GAIN is just going from a 2 year cycle to a 4 year. The effort and paperwork would be HIGHER with the new system. The cost is variable. I think I still pay under $200 for a class 3 or 2 and they cost the same as eachother. Probably a good deal on my part. To me what we should have really been hoping for is maybe just a time extension....like make the class 3 under 40 good for 8-10 years, over 40 be for 5 years. That to me would have been something to cheer about. Then for the class 2, maybe go for 2 years. But the way it is today, with the new system, how many people do you think are going to remember to do their 2 year online program? I bet most people forget to do it and then only do the 4 year doc visit. Then we'll probably see more people get violated for not having proper medical papers. You don't know how many times i've been asked for my medical the past few months. ;) (expected, since I was doing a lot of training stuff). It would also be nice to have just a couple of the standards lowered just a little for class 3. We all know that some things aren't as unsafe as the FAA thinks, in all cases. Then again, maybe some people need motivation to do the right thing to stay healthy. Either way, I'm sure it's not a universally correct answer. Everyone has a different circumstance, as some of the replies show. Right now I'm kind of a freak in a way. 48, don't use any form of medication of any type, never smoked, don't drink much (although last night was an exception :) ), and no real allergies or other issues. My worst thing is I need reading glasses, but can still pass the FAA eye chart. People my age that I know are starting to be on all sorts of pills, and have all sorts of ills. (man I don't FEEL old) :) (Don't laugh, all of you who are older who think....he's NOT old) :) Hopefully everything will eventually change to make it more of a drivers license medical, but I'm not holding my breath. Tim On 1/12/2017 9:22 AM, Rene wrote: > > Tim I agree with what you are saying........for people in perfect health. > But, just have your eye doctor tell you that you have ocular hypertension > and see what happens. The eye doc called me good, but the FAA made me redo > all the testing and then wait three months for my medical based on the > favorable (normal) test results I had submitted. My flight doc is my > regular doc so I did call him about the eyes and he told me what was needed > and that I should start my physical early so I did. 45 days early was not > enough.......the FAA needed 90. And as far as a 1 finger wave, he always > offers and then reminds me that my PSA looks good. > > If the underlying standards are not changed and we are still required to > meet them, then we really have gained very little. Remember that if you > wake up today and are not meeting any of those standard you are not to fly. > I was reminded of that by the FAA, the letter, saying I was grounded if any > of my conditions changed. > > 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 Tim Olson > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 2:55 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: transition > > > Yeah, I just got a new class 2, but I don't know what I'll do in the future. > I probably will just continue with class 2's every 2 years and letting them > fall to class 3's as I have been. While the new medical thing is a benefit > for some, it's still unclear what that means for insurance companies. And I > personally have not seen the medical process as a major issue. The price I > have paid is reasonable and it has forced me to get a physical every 2 years > which is not a bad idea anyway. Personally I think that while the new > process may help a few people, it does nothing worthwhile for me. My AME is > friendly, 2 miles from the airport, and always gives me good health advice > that I very poorly follow. > And for some under 40 people, just the fact that the medical can be good for > 5 years will save them money to go on the regular class 3 plan. The new > system doesn't really exempt them from being evaluated to the same standard, > and failing to be signed off, as far as I can tell. I may help some people > logistically though. Really, the only thing that would have made a huge > difference is doing it like a sport pilot is required to today. > The other thing is, from everything I've heard, the second class and 3rd are > basically evaluated to the same standard, so why NOT go the second class > route? I see no down side so I've done it for years just in case I got my > commercial. > Maybe as I age I'll find reason to change, but creeping up on 50 I'm ok with > either process today. > My big head scratcher is why the old slippery finger test is required for a > flight physical... Who cares if I have prostate cancer if I am otherwise > healthy. ;). But I bend over and take it because it has run in my family in > a grandfather so I even now get PSA tests occasionally....it may be good to > know. > Anyway, it's a chuckle because the AME always calls it "the complimentary > prostate exam". He's always good for a laugh and a few flying stories. His > personal view on the new medical reform is that it will actually require > MORE cost, paperwork, time, and effort on many applicants because today all > I have to do is fill in one form by re-entering the same stuff that was on > my last one (which he gives me a pdf of) and adding anything new. Then i > just go see him. No webinar to watch and when was under 40 it was only > every 5 months. So the only thing the new process does is double my visit > interval to 4 years (it was 4 years, right) but requires other effort every > 2. And at 48 I should probably see a doctor more regularly than 4 years. > Not that the new process is that bad...I just don't see it as a huge leap > forward. Time will tell how the physicians and insurance industry take it. > One thing for sure....if it reduces the financial situation and people no > longer choose to b! > e an AME because the effort isn't worth the reduced number of patients, > that could lead to an AME shortage that will jack up prices for commercial > pilots and make AME's harder to get to. We don't need that happening either. > > > Tim > > >> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Bob Turner wrote: >> >> >> One more thing: Have you thought about your medical? If you want to use > your commercial you'll need a second class. I have previously gotten a > second class but only every 2 years, so I had a 50-50 chance of having a > valid second class if a commercial opportunity came along. In 30 years it > happened just once - I was hired to ferry a 182 from CA to Wisconsin. Now, > with medical reform and just needing a physical every 4 years, I probably > will let the class two be a thing of the past. >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465000#465000 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Berck E. Nash" <flyboy(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
Subject: Re: transition
A few points. (1) A third class medical is perfectly sufficient to act as a flight instructor, including for-hire. 61.23 is very clear about this, and the FAA has also clarified it, though many CFIs still erroneously believe that a second class medical is required to operate as a flight instructor for hire. (2) It appears that medical reform will also apply to flight instructor activities such that flight instructors who comply with the new rules will not need to maintain a third class medical, either. ( https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/final_rule_faa_2016_9157.pdf) (3) A prostate exam is not required for issuance of any medical certificate. AMEs are encouraged to offer them, but it's not required. I've never had one in any of the years I've needed to maintain a first class medical. That said, I've encountered AMEs who have some very strange ideas about the regulations and have learned to steer clear of them. (4) Folks who have a condition that require a special issuance are the ones who stand the most to gain from medical reform. Conditions like sleep apnea, which should in way preclude one from flying an aircraft, currently require a yearly special issuance, and thousands of dollars in sleep studies in lots of time. All because a Go! pilot fell asleep and blamed his sleep apnea. It may be a simple process for you, but it's not for thousands of GA pilots. I'm personally not one of those yet, but who knows what happens when I get older. I'd like to think I can keep flying my RV for a very long time with a minimal of hassle. (5) Unless I go back to flying for the airlines, I have no intention of ever visiting an AME again. I don't see the point in taking even the smallest risk that I could be denied and have to go through some terrible process to be able to fly again, when I didn't need to go get a medical. Don't poke the bear. Getting a medical you don't need is a (possibly small) but completely unnecessary risk to your flying. On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > Yeah, I just got a new class 2, but I don't know what I'll do in the > future. I probably will just continue with class 2's every 2 years and > letting them fall to class 3's as I have been. While the new medical thing > is a benefit for some, it's still unclear what that means for insurance > companies. And I personally have not seen the medical process as a major > issue. The price I have paid is reasonable and it has forced me to get a > physical every 2 years which is not a bad idea anyway. Personally I think > that while the new process may help a few people, it does nothing > worthwhile for me. My AME is friendly, 2 miles from the airport, and always > gives me good health advice that I very poorly follow. > And for some under 40 people, just the fact that the medical can be good > for 5 years will save them money to go on the regular class 3 plan. The new > system doesn't really exempt them from being evaluated to the same > standard, and failing to be signed off, as far as I can tell. I may help > some people logistically though. Really, the only thing that would have > made a huge difference is doing it like a sport pilot is required to today. > The other thing is, from everything I've heard, the second class and 3rd > are basically evaluated to the same standard, so why NOT go the second > class route? I see no down side so I've done it for years just in case I > got my commercial. > Maybe as I age I'll find reason to change, but creeping up on 50 I'm ok > with either process today. > My big head scratcher is why the old slippery finger test is required for > a flight physical... Who cares if I have prostate cancer if I am otherwise > healthy. ;). But I bend over and take it because it has run in my family > in a grandfather so I even now get PSA tests occasionally....it may be good > to know. > Anyway, it's a chuckle because the AME always calls it "the complimentary > prostate exam". He's always good for a laugh and a few flying stories. > His personal view on the new medical reform is that it will actually > require MORE cost, paperwork, time, and effort on many applicants because > today all I have to do is fill in one form by re-entering the same stuff > that was on my last one (which he gives me a pdf of) and adding anything > new. Then i just go see him. No webinar to watch and when was under 40 it > was only every 5 months. So the only thing the new process does is double > my visit interval to 4 years (it was 4 years, right) but requires other > effort every 2. And at 48 I should probably see a doctor more regularly > than 4 years. Not that the new process is that bad...I just don't see it > as a huge leap forward. Time will tell how the physicians and insurance > industry take it. One thing for sure....if it reduces the financial > situation and people no longer choose to b! > e an AME because the effort isn't worth the reduced number of patients, > that could lead to an AME shortage that will jack up prices for commercial > pilots and make AME's harder to get to. We don't need that happening either. > > Tim > > > > On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > > > > One more thing: Have you thought about your medical? If you want to use > your commercial you'll need a second class. I have previously gotten a > second class but only every 2 years, so I had a 50-50 chance of having a > valid second class if a commercial opportunity came along. In 30 years it > happened just once - I was hired to ferry a 182 from CA to Wisconsin. Now, > with medical reform and just needing a physical every 4 years, I probably > will let the class two be a thing of the past. > > > > -------- > > Bob Turner > > RV-10 QB > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465000#465000 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Berck E. Nash" <flyboy(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
Subject: Re: transition
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > to not being able to get a class 1,2,3 medical. But, like you > also said, if the underlying standards are not changed, you didn't > really gain anything. What we've gained is that we don't need to prove to the FAA that we've met the standards. (Except the first time.) If you and your doctor agree that you meet the standards, that's all that's necessary. The FAA's extensive, expensive and bureaucratic process for obtaining a special issuance for people that meet the standards is the real obstacle. Something like more than 90% of deffered medicals are eventually approved, but only after a terrible time-consuming process. That means that people who meet the standards are forced to spend a lot of time and effort proving to the FAA that they meet those standards, when they and their doctors already know that they meet those standards. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: transition
Date: Jan 12, 2017
Good point. The sleep apnea reply was a good one. That's the reason my own father gave up flying for now. He functions fine daily and uses CPAP anywa y. But he didn't want the cost of any approvals or anything going forward. To that end I think it's a good thing...as long as indeed that would make hi m now able to fly. On the other hand, he could lose 40-50lbs and that would be a very good thing too. I know I could drop 40-50 and be much better off. .. Tim > On Jan 12, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Tim Olson wrote: >> to not being able to get a class 1,2,3 medical. But, like you >> also said, if the underlying standards are not changed, you didn't >> really gain anything. > > What we've gained is that we don't need to prove to the FAA that we've met the standards. (Except the first time.) If you and your doctor agree that y ou meet the standards, that's all that's necessary. The FAA's extensive, ex pensive and bureaucratic process for obtaining a special issuance for people that meet the standards is the real obstacle. Something like more than 90% of deffered medicals are eventually approved, but only after a terrible tim e-consuming process. That means that people who meet the standards are forc ed to spend a lot of time and effort proving to the FAA that they meet those standards, when they and their doctors already know that they meet those st andards. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: transition
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
My current medical expires the end of May. I'm thinking that I'll see my AME at least one more time, while I see how the new program works out. My personal doc just retired, so that complicates things for me right now. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465019#465019 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dick Gurley <rngurley(at)att.net>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
Subject: Re: transition
There has been some talk about AMEs checking prostates. Let me encourage eve ryone to get regular PSAs. It saved my life and cost a few of my friends the irs who did not check. It is just a simple blood test. Dick Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 12, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > Good point. The sleep apnea reply was a good one. That's the reason my o wn father gave up flying for now. He functions fine daily and uses CPAP any way. But he didn't want the cost of any approvals or anything going forward. > To that end I think it's a good thing...as long as indeed that would make h im now able to fly. On the other hand, he could lose 40-50lbs and that woul d be a very good thing too. I know I could drop 40-50 and be much better off ... > Tim > >> On Jan 12, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Tim Olson wrote: >>> to not being able to get a class 1,2,3 medical. But, like you >>> also said, if the underlying standards are not changed, you didn't >>> really gain anything. >> >> What we've gained is that we don't need to prove to the FAA that we've me t the standards. (Except the first time.) If you and your doctor agree that y ou meet the standards, that's all that's necessary. The FAA's extensive, ex pensive and bureaucratic process for obtaining a special issuance for people that meet the standards is the real obstacle. Something like more than 90% of deffered medicals are eventually approved, but only after a terrible tim e-consuming process. That means that people who meet the standards are forc ed to spend a lot of time and effort proving to the FAA that they meet those standards, when they and their doctors already know that they meet those st andards. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: transition
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
Kelly McMullen wrote: > The 2nd class standards for some things are significantly different than 3rd. I don't know all of them, but distant vision is correctable to 20/20 while 3rd is only correctable to 20/40. > [/quote] I am pretty sure that the distant vision requirement is the only difference between Class 2 and Class 3. I've had AME's that always checked the prostate, never checked the prostate, and even had a couple that asked if I wanted them to check the prostate.(ummm........ not really, Doc!) My understanding is that it is not required by the FAA, but it is encouraged. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465024#465024 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: transition
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
My current AME never looks, I mean, probes. I urge all males to educate themselves. PSA tests and digital exams often result in false positives, or cancer which is destined to kill you in 60 years (e.g., very slow growing). Meanwhile, surgery and radiation have definite risks, as well as significant side effects. The AMA is now recommending that if you have no family history of prostate cancer, that you should not look! e.g., the cure is more often worse than the disease. So males over 50 should educate themselves, and make the choice that seems right for them. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465026#465026 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: transition
From: Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow their directive. As it is now a medical is not valid for more than three years. The ten year time frame is a contradiction. Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical events. One of them died at the controls. Would a ten year old medical have predicted these events. A one year old medical didn't. I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a sponsor. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: medical
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year requirement is just additional noise. As I read it, the 'drivers license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME to your private doctor. I mean four pages of questions? Sheesh. So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online education part and four years later you need to see your doctor. I don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but it appears so. I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when their funding comes up again. Linn On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote: > > I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any > value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some > Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow > their directive. As it is now a medical is not valid for more than > three years. The ten year time frame is a contradiction. > > Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical > events. One of them died at the controls. Would a ten year old > medical have predicted these events. A one year old medical didn't. > > I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out > and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a > sponsor. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
Subject: Re: medical
That's been my #1 complaint since the "reform" (quotes and sarcasm intended) passed. EAA and AOPA has been banging their chest over "reform" and the reality is that nothing has changed for us. What has changed? Our AME network has had money taken out of their pockets and moved into the family doctors pocket. We have had aviation related experience of AME's stripped away from the majority of the aviation community and replaced with your family practitioner who knows nothing of aviation. However the "standards" still are maintained and they have been shifted from experienced hands to inexperienced hands. This entire reform game has been nothing more than a sales job by the two lobbying groups. I'm going to continue down the path of getting a 3rd class medical to continue to support the AME network for a couple of reasons. 1) As soon as we stop giving them our business the more difficult it's going to be to find an AME in your immediate area, and 2) I suspect the day is coming when a real AME physical is going to result in better insurance rates. This entire deal has been a joke since it was passed. I'm glad others are catching on now. We need to all be forcing PBOR 3 and demand it's focused on real reform and not just squeezing the balloon. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Linn Walters wrote: > > > > There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year requirement is just additional noise. As I read it, the 'drivers license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME to your private doctor. I mean four pages of questions? Sheesh. > So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online education part and four years later you need to see your doctor. I don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but it appears so. I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when their funding comes up again. > Linn > > >> On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote: >> >> I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow their directive. As it is now a medical is not valid for more than three years. The ten year time frame is a contradiction. >> >> Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical events. One of them died at the controls. Would a ten year old medical have predicted these events. A one year old medical didn't. >> >> I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a sponsor. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
Subject: Re: medical
The entire medical requirement has been nothing but public eyewash from day 1. There simply is not medical technology that will predict with any reliability that a pilot will have an incapacitating event. There was zero onset to my having an incapacitating kidney stone. Once the initial pain subsided, I did not have a single subsequent incapacitating pain, but was grounded for 9 months until the stone disappeared from the X-ray tests. None of the non-invasive cardiovascular tests predicts when you might have stroke or heart attack, although they may indicate a higher probability. It is continued political theater that is in the new standard. It is totally immaterial that my wife hasn't had a medical for 35 yrs, because she did not seek one. She can still fly the plane, but doesn't want the risk or hassle of getting one again. She could get in an LSA plane and fly it today. What is so different between a Luscombe or a C-140, besides a few pounds? -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Phillip Perry wrote: > > That's been my #1 complaint since the "reform" (quotes and sarcasm > intended) passed. > > EAA and AOPA has been banging their chest over "reform" and the reality is > that nothing has changed for us. > > What has changed? Our AME network has had money taken out of their > pockets and moved into the family doctors pocket. We have had aviation > related experience of AME's stripped away from the majority of the aviation > community and replaced with your family practitioner who knows nothing of > aviation. > > However the "standards" still are maintained and they have been shifted > from experienced hands to inexperienced hands. > > This entire reform game has been nothing more than a sales job by the two > lobbying groups. > > I'm going to continue down the path of getting a 3rd class medical to > continue to support the AME network for a couple of reasons. 1) As soon > as we stop giving them our business the more difficult it's going to be to > find an AME in your immediate area, and 2) I suspect the day is coming when > a real AME physical is going to result in better insurance rates. > > This entire deal has been a joke since it was passed. I'm glad others > are catching on now. We need to all be forcing PBOR 3 and demand it's > focused on real reform and not just squeezing the balloon. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Linn Walters wrote: > > > > > > > > There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year > requirement is just additional noise. As I read it, the 'drivers license > medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME to your > private doctor. I mean four pages of questions? Sheesh. > > So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online > education part and four years later you need to see your doctor. I don't > know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but it > appears so. I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the mandate > from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when their > funding comes up again. > > Linn > > > > > >> On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote: > >> > >> I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any > value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some Congress > Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow their > directive. As it is now a medical is not valid for more than three years. > The ten year time frame is a contradiction. > >> > >> Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical > events. One of them died at the controls. Would a ten year old medical > have predicted these events. A one year old medical didn't. > >> > >> I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out > and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a > sponsor. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Metrocast <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
Subject: Re: medical
Philip, As an ame I could not agree with you more I do aviation medicals on the side and if the class 3s go to the PCPs it may be not worth continuing PCPs know so little about aviation medicine The cost of flying isn't because of the cost of medicals Alan Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:16 PM, Phillip Perry wrote: > > > That's been my #1 complaint since the "reform" (quotes and sarcasm intended) passed. > > EAA and AOPA has been banging their chest over "reform" and the reality is that nothing has changed for us. > > What has changed? Our AME network has had money taken out of their pockets and moved into the family doctors pocket. We have had aviation related experience of AME's stripped away from the majority of the aviation community and replaced with your family practitioner who knows nothing of aviation. > > However the "standards" still are maintained and they have been shifted from experienced hands to inexperienced hands. > > This entire reform game has been nothing more than a sales job by the two lobbying groups. > > I'm going to continue down the path of getting a 3rd class medical to continue to support the AME network for a couple of reasons. 1) As soon as we stop giving them our business the more difficult it's going to be to find an AME in your immediate area, and 2) I suspect the day is coming when a real AME physical is going to result in better insurance rates. > > This entire deal has been a joke since it was passed. I'm glad others are catching on now. We need to all be forcing PBOR 3 and demand it's focused on real reform and not just squeezing the balloon. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Linn Walters wrote: >> >> >> >> There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year requirement is just additional noise. As I read it, the 'drivers license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME to your private doctor. I mean four pages of questions? Sheesh. >> So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online education part and four years later you need to see your doctor. I don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but it appears so. I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when their funding comes up again. >> Linn >> >> >>> On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote: >>> >>> I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow their directive. As it is now a medical is not valid for more than three years. The ten year time frame is a contradiction. >>> >>> Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical events. One of them died at the controls. Would a ten year old medical have predicted these events. A one year old medical didn't. >>> >>> I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a sponsor. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: medical
Date: Jan 12, 2017
I hate to say it but I kind of feel the same way. I do agree with both or all of the perspectives that have commented so far. Everyone who's replied has had a good point. I do agree with Philip in his support of the AME. My AME is a pilot, with the same concerns as all of us have when it comes to himself. He wants reasonable measures too. He likes to help people be healthy and goes to bat to keep people that should be allowed to fly, flying. So I really would like to see them still be around. But, I do think improvements can be made and in some cases the rules should be tweaked. It's a very tough call on what to do. I don't know that Phils point #2 will happen, but it's at least a possibility. For that matter, I feel the same way about the 100LL replacement. My local airport where I took my Checkride for Commercial was a test site for one of the new products. They found it caused some issues with their engines...not sure which version of fuel. But i certainly want to see change that is positive, not negative, whenever something changes. Tim > On Jan 12, 2017, at 6:16 PM, Phillip Perry wrote: > > > That's been my #1 complaint since the "reform" (quotes and sarcasm intended) passed. > > EAA and AOPA has been banging their chest over "reform" and the reality is that nothing has changed for us. > > What has changed? Our AME network has had money taken out of their pockets and moved into the family doctors pocket. We have had aviation related experience of AME's stripped away from the majority of the aviation community and replaced with your family practitioner who knows nothing of aviation. > > However the "standards" still are maintained and they have been shifted from experienced hands to inexperienced hands. > > This entire reform game has been nothing more than a sales job by the two lobbying groups. > > I'm going to continue down the path of getting a 3rd class medical to continue to support the AME network for a couple of reasons. 1) As soon as we stop giving them our business the more difficult it's going to be to find an AME in your immediate area, and 2) I suspect the day is coming when a real AME physical is going to result in better insurance rates. > > This entire deal has been a joke since it was passed. I'm glad others are catching on now. We need to all be forcing PBOR 3 and demand it's focused on real reform and not just squeezing the balloon. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Linn Walters wrote: >> >> >> >> There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year requirement is just additional noise. As I read it, the 'drivers license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME to your private doctor. I mean four pages of questions? Sheesh. >> So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online education part and four years later you need to see your doctor. I don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but it appears so. I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when their funding comes up again. >> Linn >> >> >>> On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote: >>> >>> I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow their directive. As it is now a medical is not valid for more than three years. The ten year time frame is a contradiction. >>> >>> Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical events. One of them died at the controls. Would a ten year old medical have predicted these events. A one year old medical didn't. >>> >>> I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a sponsor. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: medical
From: "Berck E. Nash" <flyboy(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
I completely disagree. I think that the medical reform is one of the only worthwhile things EAA and AOPA have accomplished lately. It's important to a lot of their members, and I think they accomplished a lot in terms of addressing the needless bureaucracy of the system designed for airline pilots on folks who want to fly an RV. Now, does it go far enough? Nope, I think there's lots of room for improvement, but I think it's a great first step. You're right, some of the AMEs only approved for 3rd class medicals may well stop doing it. But the docs approved to do 1st class medicals for airline pilots that need them every 6 months aren't going anywhere. That's the bulk of the money doing exams, and I'm sure that the guy I used to use in Denver who, every time I went, had 10 airline pilots in the waiting room isn't going to mind terribly that the GA crowd doesn't need him anymore. I think the system does a good (albeit inefficient) job of protecting paying passengers on airlines, and nothing is changing. Sure, airline pilots are regularly incapacitated and every so often one dies at the controls, but I think we've got a pretty good balance of minimizing that while making it extraordinarily unlikely that both pilots will be incapacitated simultaneously. On 01/12/2017 05:16 PM, Phillip Perry wrote: > > That's been my #1 complaint since the "reform" (quotes and sarcasm intended) passed. > > EAA and AOPA has been banging their chest over "reform" and the reality is that nothing has changed for us. > > What has changed? Our AME network has had money taken out of their pockets and moved into the family doctors pocket. We have had aviation related experience of AME's stripped away from the majority of the aviation community and replaced with your family practitioner who knows nothing of aviation. > > However the "standards" still are maintained and they have been shifted from experienced hands to inexperienced hands. > > This entire reform game has been nothing more than a sales job by the two lobbying groups. > > I'm going to continue down the path of getting a 3rd class medical to continue to support the AME network for a couple of reasons. 1) As soon as we stop giving them our business the more difficult it's going to be to find an AME in your immediate area, and 2) I suspect the day is coming when a real AME physical is going to result in better insurance rates. > > This entire deal has been a joke since it was passed. I'm glad others are catching on now. We need to all be forcing PBOR 3 and demand it's focused on real reform and not just squeezing the balloon. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Linn Walters wrote: >> >> >> >> There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year requirement is just additional noise. As I read it, the 'drivers license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME to your private doctor. I mean four pages of questions? Sheesh. >> So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online education part and four years later you need to see your doctor. I don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but it appears so. I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when their funding comes up again. >> Linn >> >> >>> On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote: >>> >>> I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow their directive. As it is now a medical is not valid for more than three years. The ten year time frame is a contradiction. >>> >>> Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical events. One of them died at the controls. Would a ten year old medical have predicted these events. A one year old medical didn't. >>> >>> I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a sponsor. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2017
Subject: Re: medical
I don't want to get in a deep discussion, and I haven't read all of the replies, but I know several pilots who would be out of flying without this "reform." They will be flying sometime after May 1. More pilots in the air = better for GA IMHO. Will I keep getting my 2nd or 3rd class medical? We'll see which is easier. I'm not affected much by this, but I know people who are, and that's enough for me to be in favor of it. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: medical
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Jan 13, 2017
> What is so different between a Luscombe or a C-140, besides a few pounds? One engine versus four, and the Jetstar is probably not flying anymore. John -------- #40572 Phase One complete in 2011 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465038#465038 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 13, 2017
Subject: Re: medical
Right. Try Cessna C-140, Continental C-85 engine. For LSA some Luscombes qualify, the C-140 and C-150 do not. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:33 AM, johngoodman wrote: > > > > What is so different between a Luscombe or a C-140, besides a few pounds? > > > One engine versus four, and the Jetstar is probably not flying anymore. > John > > -------- > #40572 Phase One complete in 2011 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465038#465038 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Attitude Adjustment
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jan 13, 2017
Hi While escaping to frosty north for some sunshine in Florida, I did a bit of training on a ZLIN 242. Primarily it was unusual attitude recovery / spin training and a taste of aerobatics. It has been a long, long time since I had done spins and more importantly spin recovery (24 years!). This got me to thinking, has anyone every spun the -10 and if so how did it handle. In Canada, my -10 is placarded against aerobatics but I am not sure if that is the case in the US. Based on what I have learned, simple maneuvers rolls / chandells / wing-overs etc. that don't involve G loading should be fine in the -10. Has anyone proven this to be the case. I am especially interested in the wing-overs as I fly near some pretty high granite. I know of a couple of pilots who didn't make it due to taking the wrong mountain pass and running out of sky. Inquiring minds need to know.... Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465043#465043 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Attitude Adjustment
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Jan 13, 2017
Hi Les, I did all of the commercial maneuvers in the RV-10 for my Commercial certificate. There's nothing in any of those maneuvers that would stress the plane at all. I have not, however, spun the plane. I did spin the RV-14, but that is not at all the same. Wingovers are very gentile so shouldn't be an issue, if you do them right. Lets stress that again in an example... I would normally say that rolls wouldn't be a big deal if you do them correctly. Then I took someone who hadn't rolled an RV out for a flight in my RV14 this summer. I demonstrated and talked them thru a roll, twice, and then let them try one. Within a couple seconds of starting the maneuver, we had performed a split-S, and were pointing straight at the ground, with a higher airspeed than you would enter a split-S with, because it was supposed to be a roll. The slick RV built speed extremely rapidly, and I, with a little shock, said I would take the airplane, and started to pull out of the dive. I pulled firmly up to 3.5, 3.6...3.8...4.0...4.1 G's, and then held it and recovered to level. Later on the ground I pondered what airspeed we had hit. He said he thought he saw 186kts. We pulled up the engine logs and found indeed we did hit 186kts, which corrected for altitude would give about 200kts..right at Vne. I was glad I had recovered as quickly as I did, and was glad it was in the RV-14 with it's 6G design. So whereas I used to be of the opinion that a roll was not a huge deal, I learned quickly that there's a big difference between doing a proper roll and an improper one. If someone was skilled in the maneuvers already, sure, it will probably be no big deal...and if you request aerobatic operating lims, you could probably sign it off for your RV-10 (in the US). But, I sure wouldn't want someone to take an RV-10 and decide to roll it without already being current and familiar with the maneuvers. I'm sure the guy who was with me will read this, and we'll have some fun in the RV-14 again some day. We all learn, and that day we both learned something. It's now a good chuckle for us and a notch in the experience belt. Just make sure that whatever you do in a non-aerobatic category airplane you do with skill and care and finesse and that it goes perfectly. The recovery if done wrong, may not. Tim On 1/13/2017 11:52 AM, kearney wrote: > > Hi > > While escaping to frosty north for some sunshine in Florida, I did a > bit of training on a ZLIN 242. Primarily it was unusual attitude > recovery / spin training and a taste of aerobatics. > > It has been a long, long time since I had done spins and more > importantly spin recovery (24 years!). This got me to thinking, has > anyone every spun the -10 and if so how did it handle. > > In Canada, my -10 is placarded against aerobatics but I am not sure > if that is the case in the US. Based on what I have learned, simple > maneuvers rolls / chandells / wing-overs etc. that don't involve G > loading should be fine in the -10. Has anyone proven this to be the > case. > > I am especially interested in the wing-overs as I fly near some > pretty high granite. I know of a couple of pilots who didn't make it > due to taking the wrong mountain pass and running out of sky. > > Inquiring minds need to know.... > > Les > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Miller <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Attitude Adjustment
Date: Jan 13, 2017
In the take it for what its worth arena, I highly discourage any RV10 pilot from trying to roll the RV10, either barrel roll or aileron roll. Early on in my test profiles, I did 2 barrel rolls as part of my test card work (former AF pilot with lots of test experience). In both cases, you lose roll authority fairly quickly as the speed bleeds off, so roll rate diminishes quite quickly, leaving you close to the 90 degree point is the airspeed falling off very quickly, resulting in a quick nose fall to well below the horizon before any speed builds back up, and without the speed, your roll authority is very slow.you can quickly end up nose 60-70 degrees low, in a bank with airspeed starting to increase. Unless you are an accomplished aerobatic pilot, do not try to roll the RV10. Even an old Champ rolls better than the RV10 If you do find yourself in the situation that Tim describes (or mine), remember to do this (steps in order!): 1. Power to idle 2. Roll wings level 3. Pull to the horizon The RV10 is not built for aerobatics! Wingovers, lazy 8s - yes. Rolls, Loops or Immelmans - NO! grumpy > On Jan 13, 2017, at 12:34 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > Hi Les, > > I did all of the commercial maneuvers in the RV-10 for my > Commercial certificate. There's nothing in any of those > maneuvers that would stress the plane at all. > > I have not, however, spun the plane. I did spin the RV-14, > but that is not at all the same. > > Wingovers are very gentile so shouldn't be an issue, if you > do them right. Lets stress that again in an example... > > I would normally say that rolls wouldn't be a big deal > if you do them correctly. Then I took someone who > hadn't rolled an RV out for a flight in my RV14 this > summer. I demonstrated and talked them thru a roll, > twice, and then let them try one. > > Within a couple seconds of starting the maneuver, > we had performed a split-S, and were pointing straight > at the ground, with a higher airspeed than you would > enter a split-S with, because it was supposed to be > a roll. The slick RV built speed extremely rapidly, > and I, with a little shock, said I would take the > airplane, and started to pull out of the dive. > I pulled firmly up to 3.5, 3.6...3.8...4.0...4.1 G's, > and then held it and recovered to level. > Later on the ground I pondered what airspeed we > had hit. He said he thought he saw 186kts. > We pulled up the engine logs and found indeed we did > hit 186kts, which corrected for altitude would give > about 200kts..right at Vne. I was glad I had > recovered as quickly as I did, and was glad it was > in the RV-14 with it's 6G design. > > So whereas I used to be of the opinion that a roll was > not a huge deal, I learned quickly that there's a > big difference between doing a proper roll and an > improper one. If someone was skilled in the maneuvers > already, sure, it will probably be no big deal...and if > you request aerobatic operating lims, you could probably > sign it off for your RV-10 (in the US). > But, I sure wouldn't want someone to take an RV-10 and > decide to roll it without already being current and > familiar with the maneuvers. > > I'm sure the guy who was with me will read this, and > we'll have some fun in the RV-14 again some day. > We all learn, and that day we both learned something. > It's now a good chuckle for us and a notch in the > experience belt. Just make sure that whatever you do > in a non-aerobatic category airplane you do with skill > and care and finesse and that it goes perfectly. The > recovery if done wrong, may not. > > Tim > > > > > > > On 1/13/2017 11:52 AM, kearney wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> While escaping to frosty north for some sunshine in Florida, I did a >> bit of training on a ZLIN 242. Primarily it was unusual attitude >> recovery / spin training and a taste of aerobatics. >> >> It has been a long, long time since I had done spins and more >> importantly spin recovery (24 years!). This got me to thinking, has >> anyone every spun the -10 and if so how did it handle. >> >> In Canada, my -10 is placarded against aerobatics but I am not sure >> if that is the case in the US. Based on what I have learned, simple >> maneuvers rolls / chandells / wing-overs etc. that don't involve G >> loading should be fine in the -10. Has anyone proven this to be the >> case. >> >> I am especially interested in the wing-overs as I fly near some >> pretty high granite. I know of a couple of pilots who didn't make it >> due to taking the wrong mountain pass and running out of sky. >> >> Inquiring minds need to know.... >> >> Les >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Attitude Adjustment
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Jan 13, 2017
Here in the US the legal answer is, "What do your operating limits say". My DAR asked if I planned to do aerobatics (and if so he would re-write my phase one requirements). I said "no", my op limits say no aerobatics. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465049#465049 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Attitude Adjustment
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Jan 13, 2017
To answer the original question, I believe Vans spin tested the original -10 prototype, and it recovered okay after 3 turns. I do not know if they ever did a fully developed spin. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465051#465051 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: medical
From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Jan 13, 2017
> Right. Try Cessna C-140, Continental C-85 engine. For LSA some Luscombes qualify, the C-140 and C-150 do not. Ooops! Sorry about that - I'm used to thinking heavy metal.... -------- #40572 Phase One complete in 2011 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465053#465053 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Attitude Adjustment
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jan 13, 2017
Guys Thanks for the info and perspective. I, for one, do not plan to attempt any acro in a -10. Mine is placarded against acro and I am not qualified. If I get the urge, I have access to an Acrosport II and an instructor. It's good to know that it can recover from a spin. The ZLIN I was flying needed cowl strakes so it could recover from spins. This got me wondering how the -10 would react. I was surprised that rolls would be an issue - they seemed benign in the ZLIN but of course that is a different airframe. Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465057#465057 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Attitude Adjustment
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Jan 13, 2017
When I was a baby pilot I learned basic aerobatics in a Grumman AA-1B. There is only one requirement for survival from botched maneuvers, and that's altitude. Tim's description of his passengers roll turning into a split-S is a classic example of not enough entry airspeed and/or excess power, and duplicated my first roll in the Grumman. I moved on to an S-1 Pitts (my first experimental build) before I killed myself. The Pitts makes a lousy cross-country airplane but does aerobatics quite well. The -10 is a great cross country airplane but (IMHO) makes a lousy aerobatic airplane. With a symmetrical airfoil it might perform aerobatics quite well but would also kill it's cross country ability. Les has already figured it out. If you want to do aerobatics, get a plane designed for it. If you want to travel (like I will) use the -10. Linn On 1/13/2017 8:06 PM, kearney wrote: > > Guys > > Thanks for the info and perspective. I, for one, do not plan to attempt any acro in a -10. Mine is placarded against acro and I am not qualified. If I get the urge, I have access to an Acrosport II and an instructor. > > It's good to know that it can recover from a spin. The ZLIN I was flying needed cowl strakes so it could recover from spins. This got me wondering how the -10 would react. > > I was surprised that rolls would be an issue - they seemed benign in the ZLIN but of course that is a different airframe. > > > Cheers > > Les > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465057#465057 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Attitude Adjustment
Date: Jan 13, 2017
Or if you only need 2 seats, the RV14 is reasonably aerobatic and good for X/c. Not nearly a Pitts but can be fun. Tim > On Jan 13, 2017, at 7:35 PM, Linn Walters wrote: > > > When I was a baby pilot I learned basic aerobatics in a Grumman AA-1B. There is only one requirement for survival from botched maneuvers, and that's altitude. Tim's description of his passengers roll turning into a split-S is a classic example of not enough entry airspeed and/or excess power, and duplicated my first roll in the Grumman. I moved on to an S-1 Pitts (my first experimental build) before I killed myself. > The Pitts makes a lousy cross-country airplane but does aerobatics quite well. The -10 is a great cross country airplane but (IMHO) makes a lousy aerobatic airplane. With a symmetrical airfoil it might perform aerobatics quite well but would also kill it's cross country ability. Les has already figured it out. If you want to do aerobatics, get a plane designed for it. If you want to travel (like I will) use the -10. > Linn > >> On 1/13/2017 8:06 PM, kearney wrote: >> >> Guys >> >> Thanks for the info and perspective. I, for one, do not plan to attempt any acro in a -10. Mine is placarded against acro and I am not qualified. If I get the urge, I have access to an Acrosport II and an instructor. >> >> It's good to know that it can recover from a spin. The ZLIN I was flying needed cowl strakes so it could recover from spins. This got me wondering how the -10 would react. >> >> I was surprised that rolls would be an issue - they seemed benign in the ZLIN but of course that is a different airframe. >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465057#465057 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David" <dlm34077(at)cox.net>
Subject: Falcon pitot tube
Date: Jan 13, 2017
In many years of flying I have never encountered a pitot tube failure until now. When I built the aircraft and made first flight in 2008, the Falcon tube worked correctly. After 1100 hours it failed; the business end of the tube actually broke the aluminum tube and an air leak occurred. I began to suspect something amiss after observing almost constant tail wind conditions on breakfast flights, both out and return. I had it checked by an avionics tech and the main piece came off in his hand. The internal tube through the heating element had severed. I thought of two possible reasons; (1) 1100 hours of flight vibration or possibility the encounter with the hangar door (the tube was not struck by anything). At any rate be cautious about this since the high side airspeed (IAS) was indicating low by 15-25 knots and the low side was indicating low by 10-15 knots. Consider the high speed descents (in the yellow arc) and you can easily exceed the TAS red line without knowing it. Fortunately I descend at Va (125 KIAS) so an airspeed error just puts me in the bottom of the yellow arc. BTW the Falcon tubes are now manufactured in China with a two month lead time and no stock; I opted using the Garmin GAP 26 which has both pitot and AOA lines and works fine with a 14V system. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: How to open the Top cowl
Date: Jan 15, 2017
Guys For those already flying or who completed construction, how do you open the top engine cowling? Or more specifically, what do you have to do to pull out the top retaining pins of the upper cowl? Regards Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: How to open the Top cowl
Date: Jan 15, 2017
If you build it to plans, you use the stock top cowl pin locking plate. The pins have a 90 degree bend at the end, with perhaps 3/8" sticking out. These ends get locked by the plate when it is in the up position. The plate gets 1" or so long #6 screws. To lower the plate so you can remove the pins, unscrew these screws and the plate drops down. Do not remove the screws. Now, when you get all this done I'll tell you how to replace the standard pins with 1/8" SS pins and still make the bend along the sides of the cowl. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 10:34 AM Subject: RV10-List: How to open the Top cowl Guys For those already flying or who completed construction, how do you open the top engine cowling? Or more specifically, what do you have to do to pull out the top retaining pins of the upper cowl? Regards Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: How to open the Top cowl
Date: Jan 15, 2017
Thank you Carl I did imagine that that would be the opening system, but I needed to confirm (just because the plans don't say it . Whoever wrote the manual do force you to be smart! ) Now, what about your last sentence? Carlos De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Carl Froehlich Enviada: Sunday, January 15, 2017 3:49 PM Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: RE: RV10-List: How to open the Top cowl If you build it to plans, you use the stock top cowl pin locking plate. The pins have a 90 degree bend at the end, with perhaps 3/8" sticking out. These ends get locked by the plate when it is in the up position. The plate gets 1" or so long #6 screws. To lower the plate so you can remove the pins, unscrew these screws and the plate drops down. Do not remove the screws. Now, when you get all this done I'll tell you how to replace the standard pins with 1/8" SS pins and still make the bend along the sides of the cowl. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 10:34 AM Subject: RV10-List: How to open the Top cowl Guys For those already flying or who completed construction, how do you open the top engine cowling? Or more specifically, what do you have to do to pull out the top retaining pins of the upper cowl? Regards Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: How to open the Top cowl
Date: Jan 15, 2017
As with most RVs, the plans call for using 3/32" pins in the 1/8" hinge material for the top cowl. This is so the pins can make the turn down the sides of the top cowl. While this works, it leaves some slack in the top cowl so when you fly, the pressure in the cowl pushes it up just enough to irritate you. What I did on the RV-10 (not my idea, stole it from another builder) was to take 1/8" SS pins perhaps a foot longer than needed. Chuck one end up in a drill press and tapper perhaps 10" or so down to 3/32". This is a lot harder than it sounds as SS does not like to be worked. I ended up with the drill press on its slowest speed and running a sharp rotary file in my die grinder on the pin. Then dressed up with sandpaper. Take the pin out of the drill press and cut off the end that was in the chuck, leaving about 10" of taper. The taper ends go along the cowl sides so trim the other ends of the pins to final length. A touch of oil when inserting the pins goes a long way as well. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 11:12 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: How to open the Top cowl Thank you Carl I did imagine that that would be the opening system, but I needed to confirm (just because the plans don't say it . Whoever wrote the manual do force you to be smart! ) Now, what about your last sentence? Carlos De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Carl Froehlich Enviada: Sunday, January 15, 2017 3:49 PM Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: RE: RV10-List: How to open the Top cowl If you build it to plans, you use the stock top cowl pin locking plate. The pins have a 90 degree bend at the end, with perhaps 3/8" sticking out. These ends get locked by the plate when it is in the up position. The plate gets 1" or so long #6 screws. To lower the plate so you can remove the pins, unscrew these screws and the plate drops down. Do not remove the screws. Now, when you get all this done I'll tell you how to replace the standard pins with 1/8" SS pins and still make the bend along the sides of the cowl. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 10:34 AM Subject: RV10-List: How to open the Top cowl Guys For those already flying or who completed construction, how do you open the top engine cowling? Or more specifically, what do you have to do to pull out the top retaining pins of the upper cowl? Regards Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How to open the Top cowl
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2017
I bought socket head 10-24 set screws. Drilled the end of the set screw and brazed it to the hinge pin. I have a coarse brass screw for fastening in wood (don't know what it's called) that has a 10-24 thread down the middle. It is epoxied in the front of the lower cowl so that the set screw goes through a small hole in the cowl nose and then screws into the brass thingy. I have a threaded part that fits over the set screw and fits in my battery drill so I can turn the hinge pin as I push it in. A piece of hex key in the drill will insert/remove the hinge pin far enough to clear the threaded insert. On 1/15/2017 10:33 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > Guys > > For those already flying or who completed construction, how do you > open the top engine cowling? > > Or more specifically, what do you have to do to pull out the top > retaining pins of the upper cowl? > > Regards > > Carlos > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: How to open the Top cowl
Date: Jan 15, 2017
Lynn Although I was not referring to the side cowl to cowl hinges, but to the top cowl/fuselage upper hinges, Thanks for the tip, anyway Cheers Carlos De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Linn Walters Enviada: Sunday, January 15, 2017 8:56 PM Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: How to open the Top cowl I bought socket head 10-24 set screws. Drilled the end of the set screw and brazed it to the hinge pin. I have a coarse brass screw for fastening in wood (don't know what it's called) that has a 10-24 thread down the middle. It is epoxied in the front of the lower cowl so that the set screw goes through a small hole in the cowl nose and then screws into the brass thingy. I have a threaded part that fits over the set screw and fits in my battery drill so I can turn the hinge pin as I push it in. A piece of hex key in the drill will insert/remove the hinge pin far enough to clear the threaded insert. On 1/15/2017 10:33 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: Guys For those already flying or who completed construction, how do you open the top engine cowling? Or more specifically, what do you have to do to pull out the top retaining pins of the upper cowl? Regards Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How to open the Top cowl
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2017
Ah so!!! That explains the other answers you got. :-[ I used 1/4 turn fasteners. Here's a pic of the mounting strip. On 1/15/2017 5:16 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > Lynn > > Although I was not referring to the side cowl to cowl hinges, but to > the top cowl/fuselage upper hinges, > > Thanks for the tip, anyway > > Cheers > > Carlos > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Hartzell 2 blade or 3 blade
From: "whodja" <whodja(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 24, 2017
The difference through Van's is $10k. I would like to buy the 3 blade but I'm having a hard time with the $10k difference. Any feedback between these 2 for the IO-540 on the 10 would be appreciated. Thanks Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465388#465388 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hartzell 2 blade or 3 blade
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Jan 24, 2017
From what I've read here, the 3-blade is not as efficient as the two blade. And there is the $10K. However, on the plus side it's damn sexy looking sitting on the ramp. I went with the two blade ...... hope to fly this fall. Linn On 1/24/2017 7:28 AM, whodja wrote: > > The difference through Van's is $10k. I would like to buy the 3 blade but I'm having a hard time with the $10k difference. Any feedback between these 2 for the IO-540 on the 10 would be appreciated. > > Thanks > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465388#465388 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Maib <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Jan 24, 2017
Subject: Re: Hartzell 2 blade or 3 blade
I have the MT 3 blade and have been flying for 8 1/2 years. I just paid big bucks for a prop overhaul. Ivan Kristensen flew me back to Mississippi to reinstall the prop and then we returned home in loose formation. Same power settings and fuel flow he had about 8 knots on me. Save the $10K would be my advice. It does look sexy sitting on the ramp and it might climb a bit better, but pretty sure not $10K worth! PM me if you're interested in talking more about my experience. David Maib > On Jan 24, 2017, at 7:28 AM, whodja wrote: > > > The difference through Van's is $10k. I would like to buy the 3 blade but I'm having a hard time with the $10k difference. Any feedback between these 2 for the IO-540 on the 10 would be appreciated. > > Thanks > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465388#465388 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Jan 24, 2017
Subject: Re: Hartzell 2 blade or 3 blade
I agree. They both look just about the same at 200mph. Use the $10k for fuel so your plane doesn't sit. I've seen way too many planes that sit most of the year. I don't think the hangar cares whether your prop is sexy or not. Do yourself a favor and go 2-blade and make the cowl easier to take off too. Just my $.02! Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad > On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:04 AM, David Maib wrote: > > > I have the MT 3 blade and have been flying for 8 1/2 years. I just paid big bucks for a prop overhaul. Ivan Kristensen flew me back to Mississippi to reinstall the prop and then we returned home in loose formation. Same power settings and fuel flow he had about 8 knots on me. Save the $10K would be my advice. It does look sexy sitting on the ramp and it might climb a bit better, but pretty sure not $10K worth! > PM me if you're interested in talking more about my experience. > > David Maib > > >> On Jan 24, 2017, at 7:28 AM, whodja wrote: >> >> >> The difference through Van's is $10k. I would like to buy the 3 blade but I'm having a hard time with the $10k difference. Any feedback between these 2 for the IO-540 on the 10 would be appreciated. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465388#465388 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 24, 2017
Subject: Re: Hartzell 2 blade or 3 blade
I have the MT 3-blade prop and love how smooth the ride is, but would save the money and go 2-blade if I had to do it all over again. Plus, the lower cowl is a PIA to remove with the 3-blade prop. Shannon On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Jesse Saint wrote: > > I agree. They both look just about the same at 200mph. Use the $10k for > fuel so your plane doesn't sit. I've seen way too many planes that sit most > of the year. I don't think the hangar cares whether your prop is sexy or > not. Do yourself a favor and go 2-blade and make the cowl easier to take > off too. > > Just my $.02! > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > 352-427-0285 > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:04 AM, David Maib wrote: > > > > > > I have the MT 3 blade and have been flying for 8 1/2 years. I just paid > big bucks for a prop overhaul. Ivan Kristensen flew me back to Mississippi > to reinstall the prop and then we returned home in loose formation. Same > power settings and fuel flow he had about 8 knots on me. Save the $10K > would be my advice. It does look sexy sitting on the ramp and it might > climb a bit better, but pretty sure not $10K worth! > > PM me if you're interested in talking more about my experience. > > > > David Maib > > > > > >> On Jan 24, 2017, at 7:28 AM, whodja wrote: > >> > >> > >> The difference through Van's is $10k. I would like to buy the 3 blade > but I'm having a hard time with the $10k difference. Any feedback between > these 2 for the IO-540 on the 10 would be appreciated. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Read this topic online here: > >> > >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465388#465388 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 24, 2017
Subject: Re: Hartzell 2 blade or 3 blade
Are you saying Ivan had 8kts indicated or 8 kts true over your speed? Am I reading you correctly that Ivan has the 2 blade Hartzell, in comparison to your MT? I don't know anyone with the Hartzell carbon fiber 3 blade. Would be very interested in comparison between the Hartzell 3 blade and the MT. The MT is about $6-7K cheaper than the CF Hartzell, and I very much like the smoothness, as well as the lighter wt over the 2 blade aluminum. I have time in behind both the 2 blade Hartzell and more behind the MT. Nothing wrong with the 2 blade, but my CFO wanted 3 blade, so I went along. The price delta for the MT vs 2 blade aluminum isn't nearly as great as the delta for the composite Hartzell. Allegedly the composite props are less likely to cause internal engine damage if there is a prop strike, but I've not seen any evidence one way or the other. No question the 3 bladed props make it significantly more difficult to remove the lower cowl. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 6:04 AM, David Maib wrote: > > I have the MT 3 blade and have been flying for 8 1/2 years. I just paid > big bucks for a prop overhaul. Ivan Kristensen flew me back to Mississippi > to reinstall the prop and then we returned home in loose formation. Same > power settings and fuel flow he had about 8 knots on me. Save the $10K > would be my advice. It does look sexy sitting on the ramp and it might > climb a bit better, but pretty sure not $10K worth! > PM me if you're interested in talking more about my experience. > > David Maib > > > > On Jan 24, 2017, at 7:28 AM, whodja wrote: > > > > > > The difference through Van's is $10k. I would like to buy the 3 blade > but I'm having a hard time with the $10k difference. Any feedback between > these 2 for the IO-540 on the 10 would be appreciated. > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465388#465388 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hartzell 2 blade or 3 blade
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Jan 25, 2017
Kelly McMullen wrote: > Are you saying Ivan had 8kts indicated or 8 kts true over your speed? Am I reading you correctly that Ivan has the 2 blade Hartzell, in comparison to your MT? I don't know anyone with the Hartzell carbon fiber 3 blade. Would be very interested in comparison between the Hartzell 3 blade and the MT. The MT is about $6-7K cheaper than the CF Hartzell, and I very much like the smoothness, as well as the lighter wt over the 2 blade aluminum. I have time in behind both the 2 blade Hartzell and more behind the MT. Nothing wrong with the 2 blade, but my CFO wanted 3 blade, so I went along. The price delta for the MT vs 2 blade aluminum isn't nearly as great as the delta for the composite Hartzell. Allegedly the composite props are less likely to cause internal engine damage if there is a prop strike, but I've not seen any evidence one way or the other. > > No question the 3 bladed props make it significantly more difficult to remove the lower cowl. > > > > -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm > > > > > > > > Sorry for the delayed response. Ivan had 6 to 8 knots TAS on me as I recall. He does have the 2 blade Hartzell and I have the 3 blade MT. > -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465437#465437 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dlm" <dlm34077(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Albany NY
Date: Jan 25, 2017
Is anybody in the Albany area or Saratoga Springs flying a 10? I have some questions about the area? If so please contact me directly. David McNeill N46007 For ate zero 626 for zero for ate --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David J. Fritzsche" <dfritz(at)bpgsim.com>
Subject: Elevator Push Rod Issue
Date: Jan 28, 2017
I have fabricated the F-1089 elevator push rod, drilled the ends, and deburred and smoothed out the inside of the tube. When I try to insert VA-111 into the push rod it does not fit. I have used a Scotch brite pad on the inside of the tube to try to expand the opening enough for VA-111 to fit, but after quite a bit of circling the pad on the inside do not seem to be making much headway. Anyone else had this problem and if so how did you solve it. Dave Working again on 40813 fuselage ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Elevator Push Rod Issue
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Jan 28, 2017
Don't remember any problems ..... If you take your deburring tool to the inside edge of the tube and outside edge of the VA-111 to create a 'ramp' you may have better results. Just thinking out loud .... Linn On 1/28/2017 8:44 PM, David J. Fritzsche wrote: > > > I have fabricated the F-1089 elevator push rod, drilled the ends, and > deburred and smoothed out the inside of the tube. When I try to > insert VA-111 into the push rod it does not fit. I have used a > Scotch brite pad on the inside of the tube to try to expand the > opening enough for VA-111 to fit, but after quite a bit of circling > the pad on the inside do not seem to be making much headway. Anyone > else had this problem and if so how did you solve it. > > Dave > > Working again on 40813 fuselage > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robert Jones <rjones560xl(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 28, 2017
Subject: Re: Elevator Push Rod Issue
I made the push rods quite a while ago and I do remember that it was a tight fit. I sanded the threaded end pieces a little and made sure the tube was really smooth on the inside. I still had to screw a grade 8 bolt in the end to extract them after drilling to debut and prime them on the inside. Robert Jones 702-521-1840 > On Jan 28, 2017, at 20:00, Linn Walters wrote: > > > Don't remember any problems ..... > If you take your deburring tool to the inside edge of the tube and outside edge of the VA-111 to create a 'ramp' you may have better results. Just thinking out loud .... > Linn > >> On 1/28/2017 8:44 PM, David J. Fritzsche wrote: >> >> >> I have fabricated the F-1089 elevator push rod, drilled the ends, and deburred and smoothed out the inside of the tube. When I try to insert VA-111 into the push rod it does not fit. I have used a Scotch brite pad on the inside of the tube to try to expand the opening enough for VA-111 to fit, but after quite a bit of circling the pad on the inside do not seem to be making much headway. Anyone else had this problem and if so how did you solve it. >> >> Dave >> >> Working again on 40813 fuselage >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 28, 2017
Subject: Re: Elevator Push Rod Issue
You might try just double checking the OD and ID to make sure they're close. I'd guess they should be within two or three thousandths. If they're close, try heating the tube with a heat gun--not too hot--and putting the plug in a freezer for a while. For a close interference fit, that usually helps a lot. --Dave On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 5:44 PM, David J. Fritzsche wrote: > > > I have fabricated the F-1089 elevator push rod, drilled the ends, and > deburred and smoothed out the inside of the tube. When I try to insert > VA-111 into the push rod it does not fit. I have used a Scotch brite pad > on the inside of the tube to try to expand the opening enough for VA-111 > to fit, but after quite a bit of circling the pad on the inside do not seem > to be making much headway. Anyone else had this problem and if so how did > you solve it. > > Dave > > Working again on 40813 fuselage > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
Date: Jan 29, 2017
Hi everyone. I'm happy to say that after 11+ years of work, my RV-10 is finally in the air. As a testament to Van's incredible design (both in terms of the airframe performance and reliability, and perhaps equally importantly, in producing a kit that newcomers to the idea of homebuilding can build safely) , the first flight (and subsequent ones) have been pretty much uneventful. Everything "just works" - the plane handles like a dream and I'm looking forward to spending thousands of hours flying it. Still a ways to go yet - I'm currently at 9 hours of flight time in it :-) But as nice as the plane seems to be, I'm in the phase right now of analyzing the heck out of everything to make sure it's operating as it should (fortunately, I have some AFS EFISes in there that log data for me to go over afterwards). And though the plane is operating 99% as well as I hoped for, there are a couple of things not operating quite as I expected - I'm after other people's advice to see if they've experienced something similar. Any help or insight anyone can give on any of these issues would be greatly appreciated! My plane is a pretty standard build with a factory-new Lycoming IO-540 D4A5 and 3-bladed MT prop. 1. Fuel pressure drop climbing to higher altitudes: Today, I did an "informal" climb at 110 KIAS and 2500 RPM/full throttle/full rich to 10000' to see how it would handle it. At around 3200' MSL, I see a fuel pressure of about 21psi with the engine pump (boost pump off). But in the climb, the fuel pressure drops significantly. At 5000', it's at 18psi, at 7000' it was about 16psi, then it started dropping faster. At 8000' it was down to 13psi and by 8700' had dropped down to 11psi. I turned the boost pump back on and it promptly shot back up to 20psi, so I continued the climb to 10000' and then made my way back down. By the time I got back down to 4300' I turned the boost pump off and the engine pump maintained pressure at 22psi. I never did take the chance to level out and test pressure further - without knowing if it was a significant cause for concern, I got back down to the lower altitudes instead. I haven't seen any significant pressure fluctuations in flying around under 5000'. According to the Lycoming manual, the fuel pressure for the IO-540-D4A5 at the fuel injector is supposed to be between 14 and 45 psi. This is where the Van's stock fuel pressure sensor is measuring, isn't it? Though I've seen at least two other pilot's RV-10 POHs that use numbers for the acceptable pressure to be what Lycoming quotes as that for the inlet to the fuel pump of -2 to 35 psi, so it's got me wondering if I'm misinterpreting either the Lycoming documentation or the fuel plumbing. So the question I have - is that low fuel pressure the cause for concern I think it is? If so, what might be causing it, and how would I fix it? Or is it normal? What do other people see in climb to 10000'? Though I can use the boost pump for climbs to higher altitudes (and I've heard of some certified aircraft that suggest it), it doesn't strike me as an appropriate measure if the boost pump were to fail. 2. Rate of climb at high altitudes: I haven't constructed the wheel pants yet, so I know performance will improve when they're done. At low altitudes I certainly can't complain about rate of climb - with 450 pounds of fuel and me, I did a short field takeoff today climbing out at about 85 knots and saw a 2150 fpm climb rate. But when I got up near the 10000' point, at 110 KIAS, I was only getting around 500 fpm. I haven't done proper climb charts yet, but since I've heard of lots of people cruising in the RV-10 at 15000'-17000', how are they getting up there? My climb was at full rich, as I've been taught to do in lower performing planes - is it standard practice to lean out the mixture in climbs up at that altitude for more power? Or perhaps a slower climb speed/steeper angle than my 110 KIAS? 3. Performance in general: I did some airspeed indicator calibrations today at different power settings at 3200', and ended up with the following true airspeeds: 25"/2500RPM: 150 knots, 24"/2400 RPM: 147 knots, 23"/2300 RPM: 141 knots, 21"/2300 RPM: 134 knots, 18"/2300 RPM: 118 knots, 16"/2200 RPM: 103 knots. These numbers are without wheel pants, but with that in mind, do they seem reasonable? Vans' web site suggests cruise at 171 knots at 75% power at 8000'. I know that claims should be taken with a grain of salt, and I didn't run these tests at 8000', but if my calculations are correct, at 25"/2500 RPM I should have been producing about 80% power. Is it expected that the wheel pants and/or a higher altitude are going to make a significant enough improvement to get closer to Van's numbers? 4. CHT temps: To break in the engine, I've been running it pretty hard - usually around 25"/2500 most of the time (with some cycling to 25"/2600 or down to 24"/2400 to avoid building a ridge in the cylinder). In cruise with those power settings, my cylinders 3 and 4 run comparatively cool at around 375F. Cylinders 2, 5, and 6 are about 410F, but cylinder 1 is a bit of an anomaly. Usually it's the hottest of all, getting up to around 440 (5 degrees hotter than Lycoming's recommendation for maximum service life), though there have been a few times where it's dropped rather abruptly by 50-60 degrees (for no apparent reason I can see), making it surprisingly suddenly the coolest cylinder. But it doesn't stay there - after awhile, it climbs back up to step in line with what cylinders 2, 5, and 6 are doing... but usually stays 20-30 degrees hotter than the rest. Outside temperatures have been around 30-40 Fahrenheit during the flights so far. Of course, at lower power settings, the CHTs all drop down to well under 400. And all power settings, the engine operation has been very smooth - no roughness at all. I can reduce the height of the dam in front of cylinder 1, and I've heard of lots of people having to do that. But especially with the strange temperature fluctuations I'm still not sure if it's fully broken in yet, so I've been holding off until things settle. Has anyone else noticed a hot cylinder 1, and if so, how much of the front dam did you remove to cool it down? The good thing is my centre two cylinders seem plenty cool so I should be able to sacrifice some of their airflow to get #1 down. 5. Break in: I've flown the engine pretty hard now for 9 hours, but haven't seen any dramatic sign of CHTs reducing as is supposed to happen with a break in (with that said, the engine was run in at Lycoming for about an hour, and about 45 minutes on the ground under supervision of an aircraft engine shop for further break in before first flight). Other indications like "until the oil consumption has stabilized" haven't helped either - I put in about 3/4 quart of oil at about the 6 hour mark, but that's been it.... so far, it hasn't used excessive oil, and as I've only added oil once, I'm unsure of how to even define "stabilized". Now that I'm at the 9 hour mark for flight (11 hours on the engine overall), should I conclude that the engine is probably broken in about as good as it's going to get, or should I still be holding out for a noticeable drop in CHTs? Sorry for the long email! But if anyone has any suggestions, advice, or comments on any of these or other issues, I'd certainly appreciate hearing from you! I'm looking forward to meeting with some of you at fly ins, as soon as I finish flying off the 25 hours I need to do first! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Jan 29, 2017
Subject: Re: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
1. A lot of the RV-10's do this. I know people who have changed out their engine driven pumps thinking they were going bad and nothing changed. The main thing to monitor is if your engine starts leaning out or stumbling because of it. If everything is smooth, then it's not a problem. The pressure at the inlet to the pump has a much different range because it can be sucking the fuel from a substantially lower point (the "-2") or it can be pressurized by the boost pump (the "35"). If stock, you are measuring at the pump outlet. Keep your eyes on it and you should be fine, but it doesn't hurt to run the boost pump for peace of mind. 2. You should absolutely lean out the mixture as you climb. I start leaning by 1,500' usually. I lean the EGT's out to about 100-150 degrees ROP in the climb. You can find this number by seeing what your EGT's peak at. To do this, run 20" and 2400 rpm at 3,000' and lean until they peak. I see most peak at 1,425-1,450. If so, I climb with the hottest cylinder at 1,300-1,325, and keep leaning as I climb to keep it there. I run a little more rich if I need to for CHT's, but I never run WOT much above the pattern. This will make a huge difference in your power, especially as you approach 10,000'. I suspect that 1 and 2 are somewhat related. If you start to lean, your fuel flow will decrease as you climb, and your fuel pump will be able to maintain a higher pressure. 3. Some planes are faster than others and some are slower, but I have only seen a total speed fluctuation of less than 10 ktas. The MT prop is slightly slower than the Van's-used Hartzell. Some say it's the same, and others say it's 8 knots slower. It's somewhere in that range. The takeoff and climb is supposed to be better, which I suspect will prove true once you start leaning. The wheel pants and gear leg fairings, in my experience, add about 17 kts. That should get you fairly close to the Van's numbers. I suspect you will I prove speed by leaning. Run the speed tests at 6,000-8,000 density altitude. In my experience the absolute fastest is at about 6,500 density altitude, wide open throttle, matching prop rpm and about 15-16 gph fuel flow. Most RV-10's will get 174-183 ktas in this test. 4. I suspect you have the air dam in front of Cylinders 1 and 2. Remove the dam from Cylinder 1 to see if that helps. I usually end up leaving those air dams out completely on both 1 and 2. I suspect it will. Then, increase your climb airspeed to lower those temps. Temps will come down as the engine breaks in, but those number are hotter than I like to see. Try to keep them below 400 if possible, and certainly below 420. The fluctuation seems to me to be more of a gauge issue than the cylinder. I assume these temps are all in climb. Take another look through your baffles and seal any spots where air can get to the lower cowl without going through the cylinder fins. These engines usually require at least half a caulk tube of RTV to seal well. 5. You may still get a decent drop in CHT's, but you may already be broken in most of the way. How high are you keeping your oil? I usually add 8 quarts at a change including the filter, and add a quart when it gets to 6.5. I've seen these engines settle in at 5 hrs/quart to 20+ hrs/quart. It sounds like you are at about 8-10 now. See if that drops. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad > On Jan 29, 2017, at 4:34 AM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > > Hi everyone. > > I'm happy to say that after 11+ years of work, my RV-10 is finally in the air. As a testament to Van's incredible design (both in terms of the airframe performance and reliability, and perhaps equally importantly, in producing a kit that newcomers to the idea of homebuilding can build safely) , the first flight (and subsequent ones) have been pretty much uneventful. Everything "just works" - the plane handles like a dream and I'm looking forward to spending thousands of hours flying it. Still a ways to go yet - I'm currently at 9 hours of flight time in it :-) > > But as nice as the plane seems to be, I'm in the phase right now of analyzing the heck out of everything to make sure it's operating as it should (fortunately, I have some AFS EFISes in there that log data for me to go over afterwards). And though the plane is operating 99% as well as I hoped for, there are a couple of things not operating quite as I expected - I'm after other people's advice to see if they've experienced something similar. Any help or insight anyone can give on any of these issues would be greatly appreciated! > > My plane is a pretty standard build with a factory-new Lycoming IO-540 D4A5 and 3-bladed MT prop. > > > > 1. Fuel pressure drop climbing to higher altitudes: Today, I did an "informal" climb at 110 KIAS and 2500 RPM/full throttle/full rich to 10000' to see how it would handle it. At around 3200' MSL, I see a fuel pressure of about 21psi with the engine pump (boost pump off). But in the climb, the fuel pressure drops significantly. At 5000', it's at 18psi, at 7000' it was about 16psi, then it started dropping faster. At 8000' it was down to 13psi and by 8700' had dropped down to 11psi. I turned the boost pump back on and it promptly shot back up to 20psi, so I continued the climb to 10000' and then made my way back down. By the time I got back down to 4300' I turned the boost pump off and the engine pump maintained pressure at 22psi. I never did take the chance to level out and test pressure further - without knowing if it was a significant cause for concern, I got back down to the lower altitudes instead. I haven't seen any significant pressure fluctuations in flying a! > round under 5000'. > > According to the Lycoming manual, the fuel pressure for the IO-540-D4A5 at the fuel injector is supposed to be between 14 and 45 psi. This is where the Van's stock fuel pressure sensor is measuring, isn't it? Though I've seen at least two other pilot's RV-10 POHs that use numbers for the acceptable pressure to be what Lycoming quotes as that for the inlet to the fuel pump of -2 to 35 psi, so it's got me wondering if I'm misinterpreting either the Lycoming documentation or the fuel plumbing. So the question I have - is that low fuel pressure the cause for concern I think it is? If so, what might be causing it, and how would I fix it? Or is it normal? What do other people see in climb to 10000'? Though I can use the boost pump for climbs to higher altitudes (and I've heard of some certified aircraft that suggest it), it doesn't strike me as an appropriate measure if the boost pump were to fail. > > > > 2. Rate of climb at high altitudes: I haven't constructed the wheel pants yet, so I know performance will improve when they're done. At low altitudes I certainly can't complain about rate of climb - with 450 pounds of fuel and me, I did a short field takeoff today climbing out at about 85 knots and saw a 2150 fpm climb rate. But when I got up near the 10000' point, at 110 KIAS, I was only getting around 500 fpm. I haven't done proper climb charts yet, but since I've heard of lots of people cruising in the RV-10 at 15000'-17000', how are they getting up there? My climb was at full rich, as I've been taught to do in lower performing planes - is it standard practice to lean out the mixture in climbs up at that altitude for more power? Or perhaps a slower climb speed/steeper angle than my 110 KIAS? > > > > 3. Performance in general: I did some airspeed indicator calibrations today at different power settings at 3200', and ended up with the following true airspeeds: 25"/2500RPM: 150 knots, 24"/2400 RPM: 147 knots, 23"/2300 RPM: 141 knots, 21"/2300 RPM: 134 knots, 18"/2300 RPM: 118 knots, 16"/2200 RPM: 103 knots. These numbers are without wheel pants, but with that in mind, do they seem reasonable? Vans' web site suggests cruise at 171 knots at 75% power at 8000'. I know that claims should be taken with a grain of salt, and I didn't run these tests at 8000', but if my calculations are correct, at 25"/2500 RPM I should have been producing about 80% power. Is it expected that the wheel pants and/or a higher altitude are going to make a significant enough improvement to get closer to Van's numbers? > > > > 4. CHT temps: To break in the engine, I've been running it pretty hard - usually around 25"/2500 most of the time (with some cycling to 25"/2600 or down to 24"/2400 to avoid building a ridge in the cylinder). In cruise with those power settings, my cylinders 3 and 4 run comparatively cool at around 375F. Cylinders 2, 5, and 6 are about 410F, but cylinder 1 is a bit of an anomaly. Usually it's the hottest of all, getting up to around 440 (5 degrees hotter than Lycoming's recommendation for maximum service life), though there have been a few times where it's dropped rather abruptly by 50-60 degrees (for no apparent reason I can see), making it surprisingly suddenly the coolest cylinder. But it doesn't stay there - after awhile, it climbs back up to step in line with what cylinders 2, 5, and 6 are doing... but usually stays 20-30 degrees hotter than the rest. Outside temperatures have been around 30-40 Fahrenheit during the flights so far. > > Of course, at lower power settings, the CHTs all drop down to well under 400. And all power settings, the engine operation has been very smooth - no roughness at all. > > I can reduce the height of the dam in front of cylinder 1, and I've heard of lots of people having to do that. But especially with the strange temperature fluctuations I'm still not sure if it's fully broken in yet, so I've been holding off until things settle. Has anyone else noticed a hot cylinder 1, and if so, how much of the front dam did you remove to cool it down? The good thing is my centre two cylinders seem plenty cool so I should be able to sacrifice some of their airflow to get #1 down. > > > > 5. Break in: I've flown the engine pretty hard now for 9 hours, but haven't seen any dramatic sign of CHTs reducing as is supposed to happen with a break in (with that said, the engine was run in at Lycoming for about an hour, and about 45 minutes on the ground under supervision of an aircraft engine shop for further break in before first flight). Other indications like "until the oil consumption has stabilized" haven't helped either - I put in about 3/4 quart of oil at about the 6 hour mark, but that's been it.... so far, it hasn't used excessive oil, and as I've only added oil once, I'm unsure of how to even define "stabilized". Now that I'm at the 9 hour mark for flight (11 hours on the engine overall), should I conclude that the engine is probably broken in about as good as it's going to get, or should I still be holding out for a noticeable drop in CHTs? > > > > Sorry for the long email! But if anyone has any suggestions, advice, or comments on any of these or other issues, I'd certainly appreciate hearing from you! > > I'm looking forward to meeting with some of you at fly ins, as soon as I finish flying off the 25 hours I need to do first! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
Date: Jan 29, 2017
Dan, A big congrats. I'd write a long reply but Jesse replied most of what I would have said, so take his advice. On the fuel pressure issue don't sweat it just use the boost pump. I did buy a fuel pump cooling shroud but haven't installed it. I suspect that if I did install it , it would help then fuel pressure at altitude. Also, i did a write up late my ago about cutting CHTs. Read that and just basically check your baffling, cooling find, and seal any leaks around your cylinders. Some people place a washer spacer behind the back cylinders as well. I would halt your climb if you get over 410 degrees or even 400. Certainly don't let it hit 440 like you mentioned. Don't let the oil temp get past 240 either....or I would prefer 225-230. Keeping the oil temp under 200-210 and CHTs below 400 will be beneficial to long engine life. Climb at higher airspeeds. Lean for climb. My person rule of thumb is to start leaning at around 5000' and lean anytime your EGTs are below 1225. Just lean them until the hottest EGTs are about 1225-1250, and keep them there on the way up. Performance wise it's not even worth doing the numbers to compare to others until you have the wheel and leg fairings done. It's an extreme difference. For the air dams, if you are flying with them full height just chop them down to about half. Many people remove them but I'd say start with 1/2. I don't think most anyone will have things be as cool As they want if they leave them full height. The Rv14 Van's did smarter and they are easily removable or replaceable. Also for climb rate, leaning will help but once you get over about 12-13,000' you're going to see that climb rate get slower. It is impractical for most people to fly the RV10 over 16,000-17,000' unless they are carrying no load. I have been full gross to 16,500 but it climbs so slowly that it's not worth it. Plan your trips to stay below 14,500 and you will be fine with the occasional excursion over 16,000. Enjoy the plane and treat it right and it will return the favor. Tim > On Jan 29, 2017, at 3:34 AM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > > Hi everyone. > > I'm happy to say that after 11+ years of work, my RV-10 is finally in the air. As a testament to Van's incredible design (both in terms of the airframe performance and reliability, and perhaps equally importantly, in producing a kit that newcomers to the idea of homebuilding can build safely) , the first flight (and subsequent ones) have been pretty much uneventful. Everything "just works" - the plane handles like a dream and I'm looking forward to spending thousands of hours flying it. Still a ways to go yet - I'm currently at 9 hours of flight time in it :-) > > But as nice as the plane seems to be, I'm in the phase right now of analyzing the heck out of everything to make sure it's operating as it should (fortunately, I have some AFS EFISes in there that log data for me to go over afterwards). And though the plane is operating 99% as well as I hoped for, there are a couple of things not operating quite as I expected - I'm after other people's advice to see if they've experienced something similar. Any help or insight anyone can give on any of these issues would be greatly appreciated! > > My plane is a pretty standard build with a factory-new Lycoming IO-540 D4A5 and 3-bladed MT prop. > > > > 1. Fuel pressure drop climbing to higher altitudes: Today, I did an "informal" climb at 110 KIAS and 2500 RPM/full throttle/full rich to 10000' to see how it would handle it. At around 3200' MSL, I see a fuel pressure of about 21psi with the engine pump (boost pump off). But in the climb, the fuel pressure drops significantly. At 5000', it's at 18psi, at 7000' it was about 16psi, then it started dropping faster. At 8000' it was down to 13psi and by 8700' had dropped down to 11psi. I turned the boost pump back on and it promptly shot back up to 20psi, so I continued the climb to 10000' and then made my way back down. By the time I got back down to 4300' I turned the boost pump off and the engine pump maintained pressure at 22psi. I never did take the chance to level out and test pressure further - without knowing if it was a significant cause for concern, I got back down to the lower altitudes instead. I haven't seen any significant pressure fluctuations in flying a! > round under 5000'. > > According to the Lycoming manual, the fuel pressure for the IO-540-D4A5 at the fuel injector is supposed to be between 14 and 45 psi. This is where the Van's stock fuel pressure sensor is measuring, isn't it? Though I've seen at least two other pilot's RV-10 POHs that use numbers for the acceptable pressure to be what Lycoming quotes as that for the inlet to the fuel pump of -2 to 35 psi, so it's got me wondering if I'm misinterpreting either the Lycoming documentation or the fuel plumbing. So the question I have - is that low fuel pressure the cause for concern I think it is? If so, what might be causing it, and how would I fix it? Or is it normal? What do other people see in climb to 10000'? Though I can use the boost pump for climbs to higher altitudes (and I've heard of some certified aircraft that suggest it), it doesn't strike me as an appropriate measure if the boost pump were to fail. > > > > 2. Rate of climb at high altitudes: I haven't constructed the wheel pants yet, so I know performance will improve when they're done. At low altitudes I certainly can't complain about rate of climb - with 450 pounds of fuel and me, I did a short field takeoff today climbing out at about 85 knots and saw a 2150 fpm climb rate. But when I got up near the 10000' point, at 110 KIAS, I was only getting around 500 fpm. I haven't done proper climb charts yet, but since I've heard of lots of people cruising in the RV-10 at 15000'-17000', how are they getting up there? My climb was at full rich, as I've been taught to do in lower performing planes - is it standard practice to lean out the mixture in climbs up at that altitude for more power? Or perhaps a slower climb speed/steeper angle than my 110 KIAS? > > > > 3. Performance in general: I did some airspeed indicator calibrations today at different power settings at 3200', and ended up with the following true airspeeds: 25"/2500RPM: 150 knots, 24"/2400 RPM: 147 knots, 23"/2300 RPM: 141 knots, 21"/2300 RPM: 134 knots, 18"/2300 RPM: 118 knots, 16"/2200 RPM: 103 knots. These numbers are without wheel pants, but with that in mind, do they seem reasonable? Vans' web site suggests cruise at 171 knots at 75% power at 8000'. I know that claims should be taken with a grain of salt, and I didn't run these tests at 8000', but if my calculations are correct, at 25"/2500 RPM I should have been producing about 80% power. Is it expected that the wheel pants and/or a higher altitude are going to make a significant enough improvement to get closer to Van's numbers? > > > > 4. CHT temps: To break in the engine, I've been running it pretty hard - usually around 25"/2500 most of the time (with some cycling to 25"/2600 or down to 24"/2400 to avoid building a ridge in the cylinder). In cruise with those power settings, my cylinders 3 and 4 run comparatively cool at around 375F. Cylinders 2, 5, and 6 are about 410F, but cylinder 1 is a bit of an anomaly. Usually it's the hottest of all, getting up to around 440 (5 degrees hotter than Lycoming's recommendation for maximum service life), though there have been a few times where it's dropped rather abruptly by 50-60 degrees (for no apparent reason I can see), making it surprisingly suddenly the coolest cylinder. But it doesn't stay there - after awhile, it climbs back up to step in line with what cylinders 2, 5, and 6 are doing... but usually stays 20-30 degrees hotter than the rest. Outside temperatures have been around 30-40 Fahrenheit during the flights so far. > > Of course, at lower power settings, the CHTs all drop down to well under 400. And all power settings, the engine operation has been very smooth - no roughness at all. > > I can reduce the height of the dam in front of cylinder 1, and I've heard of lots of people having to do that. But especially with the strange temperature fluctuations I'm still not sure if it's fully broken in yet, so I've been holding off until things settle. Has anyone else noticed a hot cylinder 1, and if so, how much of the front dam did you remove to cool it down? The good thing is my centre two cylinders seem plenty cool so I should be able to sacrifice some of their airflow to get #1 down. > > > > 5. Break in: I've flown the engine pretty hard now for 9 hours, but haven't seen any dramatic sign of CHTs reducing as is supposed to happen with a break in (with that said, the engine was run in at Lycoming for about an hour, and about 45 minutes on the ground under supervision of an aircraft engine shop for further break in before first flight). Other indications like "until the oil consumption has stabilized" haven't helped either - I put in about 3/4 quart of oil at about the 6 hour mark, but that's been it.... so far, it hasn't used excessive oil, and as I've only added oil once, I'm unsure of how to even define "stabilized". Now that I'm at the 9 hour mark for flight (11 hours on the engine overall), should I conclude that the engine is probably broken in about as good as it's going to get, or should I still be holding out for a noticeable drop in CHTs? > > > > Sorry for the long email! But if anyone has any suggestions, advice, or comments on any of these or other issues, I'd certainly appreciate hearing from you! > > I'm looking forward to meeting with some of you at fly ins, as soon as I finish flying off the 25 hours I need to do first! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 29, 2017
Subject: Re: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
Big congratulations. Makes all the work worth it. My first flight was last April. On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Jesse Saint wrote: > > 1. A lot of the RV-10's do this. I know people who have changed out their > engine driven pumps thinking they were going bad and nothing changed. The > main thing to monitor is if your engine starts leaning out or stumbling > because of it. If everything is smooth, then it's not a problem. The > pressure at the inlet to the pump has a much different range because it can > be sucking the fuel from a substantially lower point (the "-2") or it can > be pressurized by the boost pump (the "35"). If stock, you are measuring at > the pump outlet. Keep your eyes on it and you should be fine, but it > doesn't hurt to run the boost pump for peace of mind. > I suspect that the fuel pressure pickup isn't plumbed correctly, or there is an issue of a restriction somewhere in the lines between the tanks and the fuel servo input. The pressure hose should be connected at the fuel servo. I just went back and looked at my data from a few recent flights. The only time my fuel pressure drops below 25 psi is when I push the throttle in for take-off, where it may drop to 18 psi for a few seconds before returning to above 25 psi. No change in fuel pressure up to 9800 density altitude, which is highest I have gone in recent flights. The RSA fuel servo needs 15 psi to work correctly. If the boost pump increases pressure by more than 2-3 psi, the mechanical pump is having to work too hard. I would be looking for restrictions, such as junk in the fuel filter, a kink in plumbing, etc. Or there could be a small air leak into a fuel line, allowing sucking of air that will reduce fuel pressure, even if there is no leak. The boost pump giving a big boost implies that there is either too much suction needed, or a leak. Early on, I had a few seeps in the lines, wing to fuel selector to firewall. I went back in tunnel, installed a paper towel at every connection, and made corrections to any that left any fuel traces at all. I modified my original fuel selector install, to get the valve and lines as low as possible in the tunnel, because you don't want the valve looking like a big inverted siphon that creates potential for vapor lock. Basically spent the money to get extension for the Andair valve so I could move the valve itself down, instead of being up at the top of the tunnel. > 2. You should absolutely lean out the mixture as you climb. I start > leaning by 1,500' usually. I lean the EGT's out to about 100-150 degrees > ROP in the climb. You can find this number by seeing what your EGT's peak > at. To do this, run 20" and 2400 rpm at 3,000' and lean until they peak. I > see most peak at 1,425-1,450. If so, I climb with the hottest cylinder at > 1,300-1,325, and keep leaning as I climb to keep it there. I run a little > more rich if I need to for CHT's, but I never run WOT much above the > pattern. This will make a huge difference in your power, especially as you > approach 10,000'. I suspect that 1 and 2 are somewhat related. If you start > to lean, your fuel flow will decrease as you climb, and your fuel pump will > be able to maintain a higher pressure. > You can start your leaning where ever you choose. I lean generally to maintain EGTs in the 1200 to 1300 range during climb starting at perhaps 3000 MSL, then lean to lean of peak once I level into cruise. It isn't critical exact numbers in climb, just a twist occasionally to keep EGT in are near sea level, see what your EGT is shortly after takeoff at full rich. It should be in that range, but use whatever it is at as an upper limit, and stay about 50 degrees cooler than that. > > 3. Some planes are faster than others and some are slower, but I have only > seen a total speed fluctuation of less than 10 ktas. The MT prop is > slightly slower than the Van's-used Hartzell. Some say it's the same, and > others say it's 8 knots slower. It's somewhere in that range. The takeoff > and climb is supposed to be better, which I suspect will prove true once > you start leaning. The wheel pants and gear leg fairings, in my experience, > add about 17 kts. That should get you fairly close to the Van's numbers. I > suspect you will I prove speed by leaning. Run the speed tests at > 6,000-8,000 density altitude. In my experience the absolute fastest is at > about 6,500 density altitude, wide open throttle, matching prop rpm and > about 15-16 gph fuel flow. Most RV-10's will get 174-183 ktas in this test. > I agree with Jesse. I have the MT prop. Once I got gear fairings installed, I run about 160-165 TAS at power below 70% and 170-175 above 70% as long as I am above 5500. Speed definitely improves with altitude, while fuel flow decreases as power available decreases. I haven't done finish work on fairings yet, so I may find a couple more knots when I do that and when I get paint done. Your numbers are similar to what I had before I got the wheel pants and fairings installed. > > 4. I suspect you have the air dam in front of Cylinders 1 and 2. Remove > the dam from Cylinder 1 to see if that helps. I usually end up leaving > those air dams out completely on both 1 and 2. I suspect it will. Then, > increase your climb airspeed to lower those temps. Temps will come down as > the engine breaks in, but those number are hotter than I like to see. Try > to keep them below 400 if possible, and certainly below 420. The > fluctuation seems to me to be more of a gauge issue than the cylinder. I > assume these temps are all in climb. Take another look through your baffles > and seal any spots where air can get to the lower cowl without going > through the cylinder fins. These engines usually require at least half a > caulk tube of RTV to seal well. > Spot on. I removed the air dams, and then when 5 and 6 ran hot with no dams, used some aluminum tape on front two cylinders to achieve temp balance. I may do small dams to match where I have the tape now. Definitely use power and airspeed adjustments to keep CHT below 400. Your CHT will come down once you get wheel pants on. > > 5. You may still get a decent drop in CHT's, but you may already be broken > in most of the way. How high are you keeping your oil? I usually add 8 > quarts at a change including the filter, and add a quart when it gets to > 6.5. I've seen these engines settle in at 5 hrs/quart to 20+ hrs/quart. It > sounds like you are at about 8-10 now. See if that drops. > You will find an oil level that the engine likes. Right now mine is around 6 quarts in the sump. I hope to improve that with an air/oil separator on the breather line. You probably have the engine 80% or more broken in. There will be small improvements perhaps to 25-50 hours, but nothing like the first 5-10 hours. > Kelly McMullen 40866 with about 90 hours of flying time A&P/IA Technical Counselor ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Elevator Push Rod Issue
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Date: Jan 29, 2017
That's what I did, after drilling them refitting was a pain, but the cold/warm trick made it possible with little effort. Cheers Werner On 29.01.2017 06:21, David Saylor wrote: > they're close, try heating the tube with a heat gun--not too hot--and > putting the plug in a freezer for a while. For a close interference > fit, that usually helps a lot. > > --Dave > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: william donahoe <wbdonahoe(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Elevator Push Rod Issue
Date: Jan 29, 2017
SSBoYWQgdGhlIHNhbWUgaXNzdWUuICBJdCBtYWtlcyBhIGRpZmZlcmVuY2Ugb24gaG93IHlvdSBj dXQgdGhlIGFsdW1pbnVtIHR1YmUuICBJIHVzZWQgYSBwaXBlIGN1dHRlciBpbnN0ZWFkIG9mIGEg aGFjayBzYXcgb3IgYmFuZCBzYXcuICBJdCBzbGlnaHRseSByZWR1Y2VkIHRoZSBkaWFtZXRlciBv ZiB0aGUgY3V0IGVuZC4gIFdvbuKAmXQgZG8gdGhhdCBhZ2FpbiBpZiBpZCBpcyBjcml0aWNhbC4N ClRoZXJlIGFyZSBhdCBsZWFzdCAzIHdheXMgdG8gaW5zZXJ0IHRoZSBWQS0xMTEgdGhhdCBJIGZv dW5kLg0KRmlyc3QgbWV0aG9kOiAgIGdlbnRseSBzYW5kL2ZpbGUgdGhlIGlubmVyIGVkZ2Ugb2Yg dGhlIHR1YmUgZm9ybWluZyBhIHJhbXAgbGlrZSBMaW5uIHN1Z2dlc3RlZC4gIFRoZW4gd2l0aCBh IG1hbGxldCBvciBibG9jayBvZiB3b29kIG9uIHRoZSBmbG9vciBnZW50bHkgdGFwIHRoZSBWQS0x MTEgaW50byBwbGFjZS4gIEdlbnRseSBiZWNhdXNlIG9uY2UgaXQgaXMgc3RhcnRlZCBpdCB3aWxs IG1vdmUgcXVpY2tseSBiZXlvbmQgeW91ciBkcmlsbGVkIGhvbGVzLiAgKGFzayBtZSBob3cgSSBr bm93IHRoaXMpDQpTZWNvbmQ6ICBTYW5kL2ZpbGUgdGhlIFZBLTExMSB0byBmb3JtIGEgcmFtcCBh bmQgcHJvY2VlZCBhcyBhYm92ZS4NClRoaXJkOiAgIFVzZSBhbiBleGhhdXN0IHBpcGUgZXhwYW5k ZXIgdG8gc2xpZ2h0bHkgaW5jcmVhc2UgdGhlIGluc2lkZSBkaWFtZXRlci4NCkkgdXNlZCB0aGUg Zmlyc3QgbWV0aG9kIGFuZCBpdCB3b3JrZWQgZ3JlYXQuICBZb3Ugd2lsbCBub3RpY2UgdGhlIHdp ZGVuZWQgcGFydCBleHRlbmRzIGJleW9uZCB0aGUgVkEtMTExIGFuZCBpcyBubyBmYWN0b3IuDQoN CkJpbGwNCg0KDQpTZW50IGZyb20gTWFpbDxodHRwczovL2dvLm1pY3Jvc29mdC5jb20vZndsaW5r Lz9MaW5rSWQ9NTUwOTg2PiBmb3IgV2luZG93cyAxMA0KDQo ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
From: Tim Lewis <TimRVator(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 29, 2017
Excellent fuel pump reference (how the pump works, expected pressure output, what happens to engine fuel flow if pressure is too low, etc): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BfwuUjh_lA Data point: My AFS logs show 22-24 psi at 8500 on a flight a couple of years ago. I've recently had fuel pressure drop to 18psi occasionally (at lower altitude), and am in the process of replacing the engine driven pump to address that. No results to report yet. -- Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA) A&P RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold RV-10 N31TD -- 850 hrs Dan Charrois wrote on 1/29/2017 4:34 AM: > > Hi everyone. > > I'm happy to say that after 11+ years of work, my RV-10 is finally in the air. As a testament to Van's incredible design (both in terms of the airframe performance and reliability, and perhaps equally importantly, in producing a kit that newcomers to the idea of homebuilding can build safely) , the first flight (and subsequent ones) have been pretty much uneventful. Everything "just works" - the plane handles like a dream and I'm looking forward to spending thousands of hours flying it. Still a ways to go yet - I'm currently at 9 hours of flight time in it :-) > > But as nice as the plane seems to be, I'm in the phase right now of analyzing the heck out of everything to make sure it's operating as it should (fortunately, I have some AFS EFISes in there that log data for me to go over afterwards). And though the plane is operating 99% as well as I hoped for, there are a couple of things not operating quite as I expected - I'm after other people's advice to see if they've experienced something similar. Any help or insight anyone can give on any of these issues would be greatly appreciated! > > My plane is a pretty standard build with a factory-new Lycoming IO-540 D4A5 and 3-bladed MT prop. > > > 1. Fuel pressure drop climbing to higher altitudes: Today, I did an "informal" climb at 110 KIAS and 2500 RPM/full throttle/full rich to 10000' to see how it would handle it. At around 3200' MSL, I see a fuel pressure of about 21psi with the engine pump (boost pump off). But in the climb, the fuel pressure drops significantly. At 5000', it's at 18psi, at 7000' it was about 16psi, then it started dropping faster. At 8000' it was down to 13psi and by 8700' had dropped down to 11psi. I turned the boost pump back on and it promptly shot back up to 20psi, so I continued the climb to 10000' and then made my way back down. By the time I got back down to 4300' I turned the boost pump off and the engine pump maintained pressure at 22psi. I never did take the chance to level out and test pressure further - without knowing if it was a significant cause for concern, I got back down to the lower altitudes instead. I haven't seen any significant pressure fluctuations in flying a! > round under 5000'. > > According to the Lycoming manual, the fuel pressure for the IO-540-D4A5 at the fuel injector is supposed to be between 14 and 45 psi. This is where the Van's stock fuel pressure sensor is measuring, isn't it? Though I've seen at least two other pilot's RV-10 POHs that use numbers for the acceptable pressure to be what Lycoming quotes as that for the inlet to the fuel pump of -2 to 35 psi, so it's got me wondering if I'm misinterpreting either the Lycoming documentation or the fuel plumbing. So the question I have - is that low fuel pressure the cause for concern I think it is? If so, what might be causing it, and how would I fix it? Or is it normal? What do other people see in climb to 10000'? Though I can use the boost pump for climbs to higher altitudes (and I've heard of some certified aircraft that suggest it), it doesn't strike me as an appropriate measure if the boost pump were to fail. > > > 2. Rate of climb at high altitudes: I haven't constructed the wheel pants yet, so I know performance will improve when they're done. At low altitudes I certainly can't complain about rate of climb - with 450 pounds of fuel and me, I did a short field takeoff today climbing out at about 85 knots and saw a 2150 fpm climb rate. But when I got up near the 10000' point, at 110 KIAS, I was only getting around 500 fpm. I haven't done proper climb charts yet, but since I've heard of lots of people cruising in the RV-10 at 15000'-17000', how are they getting up there? My climb was at full rich, as I've been taught to do in lower performing planes - is it standard practice to lean out the mixture in climbs up at that altitude for more power? Or perhaps a slower climb speed/steeper angle than my 110 KIAS? > > > 3. Performance in general: I did some airspeed indicator calibrations today at different power settings at 3200', and ended up with the following true airspeeds: 25"/2500RPM: 150 knots, 24"/2400 RPM: 147 knots, 23"/2300 RPM: 141 knots, 21"/2300 RPM: 134 knots, 18"/2300 RPM: 118 knots, 16"/2200 RPM: 103 knots. These numbers are without wheel pants, but with that in mind, do they seem reasonable? Vans' web site suggests cruise at 171 knots at 75% power at 8000'. I know that claims should be taken with a grain of salt, and I didn't run these tests at 8000', but if my calculations are correct, at 25"/2500 RPM I should have been producing about 80% power. Is it expected that the wheel pants and/or a higher altitude are going to make a significant enough improvement to get closer to Van's numbers? > > > 4. CHT temps: To break in the engine, I've been running it pretty hard - usually around 25"/2500 most of the time (with some cycling to 25"/2600 or down to 24"/2400 to avoid building a ridge in the cylinder). In cruise with those power settings, my cylinders 3 and 4 run comparatively cool at around 375F. Cylinders 2, 5, and 6 are about 410F, but cylinder 1 is a bit of an anomaly. Usually it's the hottest of all, getting up to around 440 (5 degrees hotter than Lycoming's recommendation for maximum service life), though there have been a few times where it's dropped rather abruptly by 50-60 degrees (for no apparent reason I can see), making it surprisingly suddenly the coolest cylinder. But it doesn't stay there - after awhile, it climbs back up to step in line with what cylinders 2, 5, and 6 are doing... but usually stays 20-30 degrees hotter than the rest. Outside temperatures have been around 30-40 Fahrenheit during the flights so far. > > Of course, at lower power settings, the CHTs all drop down to well under 400. And all power settings, the engine operation has been very smooth - no roughness at all. > > I can reduce the height of the dam in front of cylinder 1, and I've heard of lots of people having to do that. But especially with the strange temperature fluctuations I'm still not sure if it's fully broken in yet, so I've been holding off until things settle. Has anyone else noticed a hot cylinder 1, and if so, how much of the front dam did you remove to cool it down? The good thing is my centre two cylinders seem plenty cool so I should be able to sacrifice some of their airflow to get #1 down. > > > 5. Break in: I've flown the engine pretty hard now for 9 hours, but haven't seen any dramatic sign of CHTs reducing as is supposed to happen with a break in (with that said, the engine was run in at Lycoming for about an hour, and about 45 minutes on the ground under supervision of an aircraft engine shop for further break in before first flight). Other indications like "until the oil consumption has stabilized" haven't helped either - I put in about 3/4 quart of oil at about the 6 hour mark, but that's been it.... so far, it hasn't used excessive oil, and as I've only added oil once, I'm unsure of how to even define "stabilized". Now that I'm at the 9 hour mark for flight (11 hours on the engine overall), should I conclude that the engine is probably broken in about as good as it's going to get, or should I still be holding out for a noticeable drop in CHTs? > > > Sorry for the long email! But if anyone has any suggestions, advice, or comments on any of these or other issues, I'd certainly appreciate hearing from you! > > I'm looking forward to meeting with some of you at fly ins, as soon as I finish flying off the 25 hours I need to do first! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Jan 30, 2017
I would suggest that you install the wheel pants before you fly again. I had similar issues with high CHTs without them, and after I installed them the temps came down. The additional air flow from the higher airspeed helps kept the cylinders cool. I never let my CHTs climb above 400 deg. I generally climb out at 125kts and reduce power after a safe altitude for an exned climb to 25/25. My air dams ended up at approx one third of the original height. -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465563#465563 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Static System Icing
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Jan 30, 2017
Hi A few days ago I was flying for a couple of hours in -7c wx (19F for those south of the 49th). Everything was uneventful until I was on a downwind to land when my static line became blocked. Fortunately my annual was only a couple of days away so I checked things out when I had everything opened up for inspection. I found a 1/4" column of water in the static line low point in the tail cone. As it was well below freezing there the line must have frozen thereabouts. A quick blast of air (from the panel end of the line) and the water was gone. I thought I'd mention this as something to watch for. Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465577#465577 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 30, 2017
Subject: Re: Static System Icing
Yeah, it's bad enough dealing with erroneous information ourselves, but in these days of powerful autopilots, you have to make sure it doesn't get confused either. --Dave On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:00 PM, kearney wrote: > > Hi > > A few days ago I was flying for a couple of hours in -7c wx (19F for those > south of the 49th). Everything was uneventful until I was on a downwind to > land when my static line became blocked. > > Fortunately my annual was only a couple of days away so I checked things > out when I had everything opened up for inspection. I found a 1/4" column > of water in the static line low point in the tail cone. As it was well > below freezing there the line must have frozen thereabouts. > > A quick blast of air (from the panel end of the line) and the water was > gone. > > I thought I'd mention this as something to watch for. > > Cheers > > Les > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465577#465577 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: Re: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
Date: Jan 31, 2017
Thanks for all the responses, everyone! And as it turns out, the timing is good for doing some adjustments and tweaks. Since the weather here is supposed to be not great for a little while, and since it was getting to be about time for the first oil filter inspection/oil change anyway, I think I'll be pulling a few more things apart for inspection while I'm at it. With 9 hours of initial flight time, I figure it might not be a bad time to give it the equivalent of an annual to make sure everything is working as it should. With regards to my engine pump, it's somewhat encouraging that some people have also noticed a pressure drop while climbing. But not everyone seems to - a lot of people have reported very little if any loss of pressure. Along the way I've learned a lot about how engine fuel pumps work (thanks for the YouTube link, Tim!). Over the next few days, I'm going to be pulling apart my fuel filters and strainers to see if any contamination or blockages have made their way in (quite possible after construction - and now I certainly hope so, since that would be an easy fix!), and will certainly check for possible kinks or air leaks into the fuel lines too. I have an Andair fuel selector valve with an extension so the valve is towards the bottom of my tunnel, eliminating at least one potential issue. Here in Canada, we need to have gascolators installed at the lowest point in the fuel system to pass inspection (bureaucracy, not science), so there's another point of potential failure in my fuel system that isn't in Van's plans. I have my gascolators in the wing roots, so there's another filter the pumps have to pull fuel through that potentially drops the pressure. You can bet those are going to go through some intense scrutiny too. What I just don't understand though is why at low altitude and high power settings (25"/2500, and around 20 gph), I'm seeing an OK fuel pressure of around 22 psi.. but for some reason when I did my climb, the pressure went way down even though the flow stayed the same.. and then when I got back to a lower altitude, the pressure went right back up again. I'm not sure if it was related to altitude, high power for an extended period, or climb attitude. Once I finish going through the system for leakage, blockages, etc. and get the plane back in the air, if I'm still having trouble, my plan is to try a step climb to try and isolate whether altitude or attitude is more likely causing the issue in the first place. With the rental planes I've flown in the past, the mantra was always just to go full rich for climb, but very few of those planes could easily get to 10000' anyway. Leaning for climb seems to definitely be the recommended practice for the RV-10, and thanks for the advice of keeping the hottest EGTs at a consistent temperature throughout the climb. In my full rich climb, they cooled by about 160 degrees throughout the climb, so there is certainly a fair bit of leaning I could have been doing to keep things efficient. Leaning will also reduce fuel flow, which should increase fuel pressure... though if I'm still having trouble maintaining pressure at richer mixtures I'm still going to be a bit concerned. Regardless, I definitely have to get my CHTs down, especially if the plan is to climb with a leaner mixture. My baffling and sealing under the cowl is currently pretty minimal - nothing more than as per Van's instructions. The plan now is to use more RTV in all the nooks and crannies where air is undoubtedly leaking out pointlessly, as well as cap off the holes in the aft baffle where the engine mount protrudes. From what people say, that should improve cooling significantly. I'll also take off a good portion of the dam in front of cylinder 1 to try to bring it more inline with the rest. And getting those wheel and gear leg fairings done certainly won't hurt with cooling or performance either. I'm going to move them off the back burner and get them done as soon as I can. Despite my high CHTs, somehow my oil temperature behaves much nicer - so far, it's only gotten to about 180 and stays around there, regardless of power settings, altitude, etc. I've been keeping the oil at about 8 quarts, and added a bit when it looked like it got down to around 7.5. The dipstick just has marks at 6 and 9 so both were guesttimates - I'll measure more precisely the oil level before each flight and when I add so I can get a more accurate idea of oil consumption... I'm not even altogether sure if I've just lost oil via the breather tube at 8 quarts. If it gets down to around 7.5 again, I might leave it there for awhile to see if it continues to drop further. Thanks again, everyone, for all of the very helpful advice and insight! Despite the thrill of finally taking the plane up, it's time to buckle down and spend another couple of weeks working on it to try and improve what I've seen so far! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
From: Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Jan 31, 2017
Congratulations Dan Wishing you safe skies and low temperatures. Warm regards from downunder. Patrick > On 29 Jan 2017, at 20:04, Dan Charrois wrote: > > > Hi everyone. > > I'm happy to say that after 11+ years of work, my RV-10 is finally in the air. As a testament to Van's incredible design (both in terms of the airframe performance and reliability, and perhaps equally importantly, in producing a kit that newcomers to the idea of homebuilding can build safely) , the first flight (and subsequent ones) have been pretty much uneventful. Everything "just works" - the plane handles like a dream and I'm looking forward to spending thousands of hours flying it. Still a ways to go yet - I'm currently at 9 hours of flight time in it :-) > > But as nice as the plane seems to be, I'm in the phase right now of analyzing the heck out of everything to make sure it's operating as it should (fortunately, I have some AFS EFISes in there that log data for me to go over afterwards). And though the plane is operating 99% as well as I hoped for, there are a couple of things not operating quite as I expected - I'm after other people's advice to see if they've experienced something similar. Any help or insight anyone can give on any of these issues would be greatly appreciated! > > My plane is a pretty standard build with a factory-new Lycoming IO-540 D4A5 and 3-bladed MT prop. > > > > 1. Fuel pressure drop climbing to higher altitudes: Today, I did an "informal" climb at 110 KIAS and 2500 RPM/full throttle/full rich to 10000' to see how it would handle it. At around 3200' MSL, I see a fuel pressure of about 21psi with the engine pump (boost pump off). But in the climb, the fuel pressure drops significantly. At 5000', it's at 18psi, at 7000' it was about 16psi, then it started dropping faster. At 8000' it was down to 13psi and by 8700' had dropped down to 11psi. I turned the boost pump back on and it promptly shot back up to 20psi, so I continued the climb to 10000' and then made my way back down. By the time I got back down to 4300' I turned the boost pump off and the engine pump maintained pressure at 22psi. I never did take the chance to level out and test pressure further - without knowing if it was a significant cause for concern, I got back down to the lower altitudes instead. I haven't seen any significant pressure fluctuations in flying a! > round under 5000'. > > According to the Lycoming manual, the fuel pressure for the IO-540-D4A5 at the fuel injector is supposed to be between 14 and 45 psi. This is where the Van's stock fuel pressure sensor is measuring, isn't it? Though I've seen at least two other pilot's RV-10 POHs that use numbers for the acceptable pressure to be what Lycoming quotes as that for the inlet to the fuel pump of -2 to 35 psi, so it's got me wondering if I'm misinterpreting either the Lycoming documentation or the fuel plumbing. So the question I have - is that low fuel pressure the cause for concern I think it is? If so, what might be causing it, and how would I fix it? Or is it normal? What do other people see in climb to 10000'? Though I can use the boost pump for climbs to higher altitudes (and I've heard of some certified aircraft that suggest it), it doesn't strike me as an appropriate measure if the boost pump were to fail. > > > > 2. Rate of climb at high altitudes: I haven't constructed the wheel pants yet, so I know performance will improve when they're done. At low altitudes I certainly can't complain about rate of climb - with 450 pounds of fuel and me, I did a short field takeoff today climbing out at about 85 knots and saw a 2150 fpm climb rate. But when I got up near the 10000' point, at 110 KIAS, I was only getting around 500 fpm. I haven't done proper climb charts yet, but since I've heard of lots of people cruising in the RV-10 at 15000'-17000', how are they getting up there? My climb was at full rich, as I've been taught to do in lower performing planes - is it standard practice to lean out the mixture in climbs up at that altitude for more power? Or perhaps a slower climb speed/steeper angle than my 110 KIAS? > > > > 3. Performance in general: I did some airspeed indicator calibrations today at different power settings at 3200', and ended up with the following true airspeeds: 25"/2500RPM: 150 knots, 24"/2400 RPM: 147 knots, 23"/2300 RPM: 141 knots, 21"/2300 RPM: 134 knots, 18"/2300 RPM: 118 knots, 16"/2200 RPM: 103 knots. These numbers are without wheel pants, but with that in mind, do they seem reasonable? Vans' web site suggests cruise at 171 knots at 75% power at 8000'. I know that claims should be taken with a grain of salt, and I didn't run these tests at 8000', but if my calculations are correct, at 25"/2500 RPM I should have been producing about 80% power. Is it expected that the wheel pants and/or a higher altitude are going to make a significant enough improvement to get closer to Van's numbers? > > > > 4. CHT temps: To break in the engine, I've been running it pretty hard - usually around 25"/2500 most of the time (with some cycling to 25"/2600 or down to 24"/2400 to avoid building a ridge in the cylinder). In cruise with those power settings, my cylinders 3 and 4 run comparatively cool at around 375F. Cylinders 2, 5, and 6 are about 410F, but cylinder 1 is a bit of an anomaly. Usually it's the hottest of all, getting up to around 440 (5 degrees hotter than Lycoming's recommendation for maximum service life), though there have been a few times where it's dropped rather abruptly by 50-60 degrees (for no apparent reason I can see), making it surprisingly suddenly the coolest cylinder. But it doesn't stay there - after awhile, it climbs back up to step in line with what cylinders 2, 5, and 6 are doing... but usually stays 20-30 degrees hotter than the rest. Outside temperatures have been around 30-40 Fahrenheit during the flights so far. > > Of course, at lower power settings, the CHTs all drop down to well under 400. And all power settings, the engine operation has been very smooth - no roughness at all. > > I can reduce the height of the dam in front of cylinder 1, and I've heard of lots of people having to do that. But especially with the strange temperature fluctuations I'm still not sure if it's fully broken in yet, so I've been holding off until things settle. Has anyone else noticed a hot cylinder 1, and if so, how much of the front dam did you remove to cool it down? The good thing is my centre two cylinders seem plenty cool so I should be able to sacrifice some of their airflow to get #1 down. > > > > 5. Break in: I've flown the engine pretty hard now for 9 hours, but haven't seen any dramatic sign of CHTs reducing as is supposed to happen with a break in (with that said, the engine was run in at Lycoming for about an hour, and about 45 minutes on the ground under supervision of an aircraft engine shop for further break in before first flight). Other indications like "until the oil consumption has stabilized" haven't helped either - I put in about 3/4 quart of oil at about the 6 hour mark, but that's been it.... so far, it hasn't used excessive oil, and as I've only added oil once, I'm unsure of how to even define "stabilized". Now that I'm at the 9 hour mark for flight (11 hours on the engine overall), should I conclude that the engine is probably broken in about as good as it's going to get, or should I still be holding out for a noticeable drop in CHTs? > > > > Sorry for the long email! But if anyone has any suggestions, advice, or comments on any of these or other issues, I'd certainly appreciate hearing from you! > > I'm looking forward to meeting with some of you at fly ins, as soon as I finish flying off the 25 hours I need to do first! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 31, 2017
Subject: Re: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
I don't recall if it was suggested, but you might want to either Tee in a calibrated fuel pressure gauge, or just substitute one to see if your engine monitoring system is reporting fuel pressure accurately. The mechanical pump is used on a variety of engines, a lot of the fuel injected models using the same part number. Both the 4 cyl 200 hp engine on my Mooney and the IO-540 of my -10 use the same pump. They both produce indicated 25-27 psi and the boost pumps increase that by 1-2 psi. While I don't think gascolators on the suction side should create much restriction, who knows. One other thought...the fuel vent line is supposed to have 45 degree cut to slightly pressurize the tank. (section 44-7), . If the tank isn't at atmospheric pressure or better at higher altitude the pump has to work harder. Easy way to check for air leaks between boost pump and mechanical is to simply turn on boost pump with mixture at cutoff until it reaches max pressure, turn it off, and see how long the system holds that pressure. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > Thanks for all the responses, everyone! And as it turns out, the timing > is good for doing some adjustments and tweaks. Since the weather here is > supposed to be not great for a little while, and since it was getting to be > about time for the first oil filter inspection/oil change anyway, I think > I'll be pulling a few more things apart for inspection while I'm at it. > With 9 hours of initial flight time, I figure it might not be a bad time to > give it the equivalent of an annual to make sure everything is working as > it should. > > With regards to my engine pump, it's somewhat encouraging that some people > have also noticed a pressure drop while climbing. But not everyone seems > to - a lot of people have reported very little if any loss of pressure. > Along the way I've learned a lot about how engine fuel pumps work (thanks > for the YouTube link, Tim!). Over the next few days, I'm going to be > pulling apart my fuel filters and strainers to see if any contamination or > blockages have made their way in (quite possible after construction - and > now I certainly hope so, since that would be an easy fix!), and will > certainly check for possible kinks or air leaks into the fuel lines too. I > have an Andair fuel selector valve with an extension so the valve is > towards the bottom of my tunnel, eliminating at least one potential issue. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Jan 31, 2017
I agree with Kelly ..... if the flow doesn't change then neither does the pressure ..... at the spider. Again, your flow gauge is, in reality, a pressure gauge calibrated for known orifices in the injectors to read flow in gallons per hour. They just measure at different points. I'd look more closely at the fuel pressure sensor and fly ..... above the airport, of course just in case. Now that you know what to look for ..... fuel pressure and fuel flow ..... it might be an opportunity to narrow down the culprit rather than indict 'something in the fuel system'. Since it's early in the flight testing, I wonder if the high(er) angle of attack might break loose a little bubble of air trapped somewhere in the system. Engine driven pumps do not handle vapor well at all. Testing might cover climbing to see if you can duplicate the pressure loss, and if so climb with the boost pump on .... they operate differently ..... to see if there's a change. There are so many variables present that you might be chasing a 'problem' that doesn't exist. Having said that, your 'early annual' is good for safety (if there is a problem) and mental calm. I live by the 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it' mantra ..... which puts the onus on determining if it's broke first. Linn .... hoping to cover this ground this fall On 1/31/2017 8:17 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > I don't recall if it was suggested, but you might want to either Tee > in a calibrated fuel pressure gauge, or just substitute one to see if > your engine monitoring system is reporting fuel pressure accurately. > The mechanical pump is used on a variety of engines, a lot of the fuel > injected models using the same part number. Both the 4 cyl 200 hp > engine on my Mooney and the IO-540 of my -10 use the same pump. They > both produce indicated 25-27 psi and the boost pumps increase that by > 1-2 psi. While I don't think gascolators on the suction side should > create much restriction, who knows. One other thought...the fuel vent > line is supposed to have 45 degree cut to slightly pressurize the > tank. (section 44-7), . If the tank isn't at atmospheric pressure or > better at higher altitude the pump has to work harder. > Easy way to check for air leaks between boost pump and mechanical is > to simply turn on boost pump with mixture at cutoff until it reaches > max pressure, turn it off, and see how long the system holds that > pressure. > > -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Dan Charrois > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for all the responses, everyone! And as it turns out, the > timing is good for doing some adjustments and tweaks. Since the > weather here is supposed to be not great for a little while, and > since it was getting to be about time for the first oil filter > inspection/oil change anyway, I think I'll be pulling a few more > things apart for inspection while I'm at it. With 9 hours of > initial flight time, I figure it might not be a bad time to give > it the equivalent of an annual to make sure everything is working > as it should. > > With regards to my engine pump, it's somewhat encouraging that > some people have also noticed a pressure drop while climbing. But > not everyone seems to - a lot of people have reported very little > if any loss of pressure. Along the way I've learned a lot about > how engine fuel pumps work (thanks for the YouTube link, Tim!). > Over the next few days, I'm going to be pulling apart my fuel > filters and strainers to see if any contamination or blockages > have made their way in (quite possible after construction - and > now I certainly hope so, since that would be an easy fix!), and > will certainly check for possible kinks or air leaks into the fuel > lines too. I have an Andair fuel selector valve with an extension > so the valve is towards the bottom of my tunnel, eliminating at > least one potential issue. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Jan 31, 2017
The pressure at the flow divider is controlled by the fuel servo. The pressure pick-off is at the servo, in the inlet area, and reflects the fuel pump pressure. The servo will control output pressure to the flow divider, which also determines the fuel flow. However, the fuel servo needs a minimum input pressure of around 14-15 psi to have full control. The fuel flow sensor that most systems use is a positive displacement spinning wheel, and is insensitive to pressure. (red cube and similar devices) On 1/31/2017 6:58 AM, Linn Walters wrote: > I agree with Kelly ..... if the flow doesn't change then neither does > the pressure ..... at the spider. Again, your flow gauge is, in > reality, a pressure gauge calibrated for known orifices in the injectors > to read flow in gallons per hour. They just measure at different > points. I'd look more closely at the fuel pressure sensor and fly ..... > above the airport, of course just in case. Now that you know what to > look for ..... fuel pressure and fuel flow ..... it might be an > opportunity to narrow down the culprit rather than indict 'something in > the fuel system'. Since it's early in the flight testing, I wonder if > the high(er) angle of attack might break loose a little bubble of air > trapped somewhere in the system. Engine driven pumps do not handle > vapor well at all. Testing might cover climbing to see if you can > duplicate the pressure loss, and if so climb with the boost pump on .... > they operate differently ..... to see if there's a change. > There are so many variables present that you might be chasing a > 'problem' that doesn't exist. Having said that, your 'early annual' is > good for safety (if there is a problem) and mental calm. I live by the > 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it' mantra ..... which puts the onus on > determining if it's broke first. > Linn .... hoping to cover this ground this fall ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David" <dlm34077(at)cox.net>
Subject: static air
Date: Jan 31, 2017
All the more reason to have a Curtiss valve in the panel to the static line to provide an opening to cabin air instead of the old solution " breaking the VSI instrument". --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Jan 31, 2017
At higher altitudes the fuel will vaporize easier. Additionally, most of the time while you're climbing the airflow thru the cowl isn't as good. So, you have heat buildup causing vapor, and altitude making vapor easier to form. With the fuel pump behind the engine, it's in an area of higher heat. So, vapor can be a problem. There are PLENTY of people who have noticed this in their RV-10s. There are some who have not. I certainly wouldn't replace a fuel pump over it, because it is common enough that I don't believe it to be highly abnormal. This has happened to me maybe 25 times or 30 times in 1200 hours...maybe more, but not every flight. Usually it happens when I get over 8000'. Never has the pressure actually dropped enough that the engine felt it. I have seen as low as 12PSI. Leaning for climb helps, because you reduce the flow which increases the pressure. Climbing slower helps because you cool better. I HAVE seen it happen where running the boost pump for 30 seconds takes care of it and it doesn't re-occur. Other times it may come back in a minute or two. Maybe it's a pocket of vapor that gets blow thru with the boost pump. Either way, the important thing is you know it's happening and most EFIS systems will audibly alert you. When I get the alert I just look at the gauge, turn on the pump, and the problem is over. I did buy a fuel pump cooling shroud from Aircraft Spruce at one with the intent of adding blast cooling to my fuel pump. I never bothered to install it because it's kind of a pain to get into that area and install it, or even replace the fuel pump in the first place. I decided that it wasn't worth the effort for an occasional occurrence. It's not bad that you're going to go thru all the inspection work, but I wouldn't sweat it too much about the fuel pressure in climb unless it happens to you all the time. Try climbing at 120kts and try a few things before you spend too much worry over it. Tim On 1/31/2017 4:32 AM, Dan Charrois wrote: > What I just don't understand though is why at low altitude and high > power settings (25"/2500, and around 20 gph), I'm seeing an OK fuel > pressure of around 22 psi.. but for some reason when I did my climb, > the pressure went way down even though the flow stayed the same.. and > then when I got back to a lower altitude, the pressure went right > back up again. I'm not sure if it was related to altitude, high > power for an extended period, or climb attitude. Once I finish going > through the system for leakage, blockages, etc. and get the plane > back in the air, if I'm still having trouble, my plan is to try a > step climb to try and isolate whether altitude or attitude is more > likely causing the issue in the first place. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 31, 2017
Subject: Re: static air
A well designed static system will have the lines from the ports go up to the top of the cabin before proceeding forward. Last I checked, water won't flow up hill, unless you maintain a siphon.That is the way I installed mine. Tee between the ports is at the top of the nearest bulkhead. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:42 AM, David wrote: > All the more reason to have a Curtiss valve in the panel to the static > line to provide an opening to cabin air instead of the old solution =9C > breaking the VSI instrument=9D. > > > ------------------------------ > [image: Avast logo] > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 31, 2017
Subject: Re: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
I agree in general, however I seriously doubt any vapor is occurring. There is supposed to be a blast tube of cooling air on the mechanical pump, providing ambient air. With a constant flow of fuel the avgas is unlikely to vaporize under 15 psi of pressure. You would have a lot more occurences of low pressure and likely some engine stumbles if there really was vapor. I did a lot of my Phase I at temps above 100 degrees, and had no issues with fuel pressure. I could see bending the fuel vent lines forward a little to get more pressure into the tank to see if that helped. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > At higher altitudes the fuel will vaporize easier. Additionally, most > of the time while you're climbing the airflow thru the cowl isn't > as good. So, you have heat buildup causing vapor, and altitude making > vapor easier to form. With the fuel pump behind the > engine, it's in an area of higher heat. So, vapor can be a > problem. There are PLENTY of people who have noticed this > in their RV-10s. There are some who have not. > I certainly wouldn't replace a fuel pump over it, because it > is common enough that I don't believe it to be highly abnormal. > This has happened to me maybe 25 times or 30 times in > 1200 hours...maybe more, but not every flight. Usually > it happens when I get over 8000'. Never has the pressure > actually dropped enough that the engine felt it. > I have seen as low as 12PSI. Leaning for climb helps, > because you reduce the flow which increases the pressure. > Climbing slower helps because you cool better. > > I HAVE seen it happen where running the boost pump for 30 seconds > takes care of it and it doesn't re-occur. Other times it may > come back in a minute or two. Maybe it's a pocket of vapor > that gets blow thru with the boost pump. Either way, the > important thing is you know it's happening and most EFIS > systems will audibly alert you. When I get the alert I > just look at the gauge, turn on the pump, and the problem > is over. > > I did buy a fuel pump cooling shroud from Aircraft Spruce at one > with the intent of adding blast cooling to my fuel pump. > I never bothered to install it because it's kind of a > pain to get into that area and install it, or even > replace the fuel pump in the first place. I decided that > it wasn't worth the effort for an occasional occurrence. > > It's not bad that you're going to go thru all the inspection work, > but I wouldn't sweat it too much about the fuel pressure in > climb unless it happens to you all the time. Try climbing > at 120kts and try a few things before you spend too > much worry over it. > > Tim > > > On 1/31/2017 4:32 AM, Dan Charrois wrote: > >> What I just don't understand though is why at low altitude and high >> power settings (25"/2500, and around 20 gph), I'm seeing an OK fuel >> pressure of around 22 psi.. but for some reason when I did my climb, >> the pressure went way down even though the flow stayed the same.. and >> then when I got back to a lower altitude, the pressure went right >> back up again. I'm not sure if it was related to altitude, high >> power for an extended period, or climb attitude. Once I finish going >> through the system for leakage, blockages, etc. and get the plane >> back in the air, if I'm still having trouble, my plan is to try a >> step climb to try and isolate whether altitude or attitude is more >> likely causing the issue in the first place. >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2017
From: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Subject: Re: static air
Agreed. Tubes go up to top center of tail joining left and right side with a tee which then moves down and forward. -Sean #40303 (long gray suck is wearing on me) > Kelly McMullen > January 31, 2017 at 2:12 PM > A well designed static system will have the lines from the ports go up > to the top of the cabin before proceeding forward. Last I checked, > water won't flow up hill, unless you maintain a siphon.That is the way > I installed mine. Tee between the ports is at the top of the nearest > bulkhead. > > -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John MacCallum" <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
Date: Feb 01, 2017
Hi Dan, I have just been looking at my numbers from the AFS 4500 System on my Rv10 with the IO-540 D4A5, Your performance numbers are pretty much the same as mine so when you get your wheel Pants and Spats sorted out I think you Will have no trouble getting better than 170 KTAS. The best I have seen on mine so far has been 173 at 9000 ft WOT. As for CHTs they seem a bit high from what I am seeing here. I have to convert my numbers for you because here in VH we use a Hybrid system where volume and Temp are metric. You don't show Fuel flow numbers for your figures but at Sea Level We look for 96 litres /hour which if I convert for you is 25.4 gph. Climbing to 7500 ft and WOT the highest my CHTs got was around 198 deg C which is 388 deg F. This was when the engine had about 25 hours on it. The Delta from OAT of 25 deg (77 F ) was 173 deg C or (311 deg F). Now that the engine has about 85 hours on it, it is running a little cooler with the Hottest being 194 C (381 deg F) for a delta of 167 deg C (301 deg F). So putting a few more hours on it have made the temps come down a bit, by a around 10 deg F. By the way I climb out at the approx IAS for max Aerodynamic efficiency which I have been told is 117 KIAS. (If someone has an update on that number I would be Interested to know what you have.) Anyway a bit more air over the Cylinders makes it a little cooler of course and if I climb at 85 knots the Engine does get quite a bit hotter and the temp will climb above my usual limit of 204 deg C (400 F). Although I haven't tried that sort of Max performance climb for a while so it may be running a little cooler at 85 knots now. As for your #1 Cylinder doing funny stuff, I had my number 2 doing a similar thing. It would go high at full power and then flip suddenly to under all the others when I leaned the engine. It turned out it was a partially blocked Injector. I couldn't work out what it was in there except that I could see a very slight whisker of something in the Orifice when I looked through it. We couldn't get it out with air or an Ultrasonic Cleaner, so I resorted to a Very fine piece (much finer than the drill size of the orifice) of copper wire to poke it out. Problem fixed! So after all of that check your Fuel flow is above 25 Gph at sea level on takeoff just to be sure that the Servo Is giving the Engine enough fuel. Cheers John MacCallum VH-DUU RV 10 # 41016 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Charrois Sent: Sunday, 29 January 2017 8:34 PM Subject: RV10-List: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions) Hi everyone. I'm happy to say that after 11+ years of work, my RV-10 is finally in the air. As a testament to Van's incredible design (both in terms of the airframe performance and reliability, and perhaps equally importantly, in producing a kit that newcomers to the idea of homebuilding can build safely) , the first flight (and subsequent ones) have been pretty much uneventful. Everything "just works" - the plane handles like a dream and I'm looking forward to spending thousands of hours flying it. Still a ways to go yet - I'm currently at 9 hours of flight time in it :-) But as nice as the plane seems to be, I'm in the phase right now of analyzing the heck out of everything to make sure it's operating as it should (fortunately, I have some AFS EFISes in there that log data for me to go over afterwards). And though the plane is operating 99% as well as I hoped for, there are a couple of things not operating quite as I expected - I'm after other people's advice to see if they've experienced something similar. Any help or insight anyone can give on any of these issues would be greatly appreciated! My plane is a pretty standard build with a factory-new Lycoming IO-540 D4A5 and 3-bladed MT prop. 1. Fuel pressure drop climbing to higher altitudes: Today, I did an "informal" climb at 110 KIAS and 2500 RPM/full throttle/full rich to 10000' to see how it would handle it. At around 3200' MSL, I see a fuel pressure of about 21psi with the engine pump (boost pump off). But in the climb, the fuel pressure drops significantly. At 5000', it's at 18psi, at 7000' it was about 16psi, then it started dropping faster. At 8000' it was down to 13psi and by 8700' had dropped down to 11psi. I turned the boost pump back on and it promptly shot back up to 20psi, so I continued the climb to 10000' and then made my way back down. By the time I got back down to 4300' I turned the boost pump off and the engine pump maintained pressure at 22psi. I never did take the chance to level out and test pressure further - without knowing if it was a significant cause for concern, I got back down to the lower altitudes instead. I haven't seen any significant pressure fluctuations in flying a! round under 5000'. According to the Lycoming manual, the fuel pressure for the IO-540-D4A5 at the fuel injector is supposed to be between 14 and 45 psi. This is where the Van's stock fuel pressure sensor is measuring, isn't it? Though I've seen at least two other pilot's RV-10 POHs that use numbers for the acceptable pressure to be what Lycoming quotes as that for the inlet to the fuel pump of -2 to 35 psi, so it's got me wondering if I'm misinterpreting either the Lycoming documentation or the fuel plumbing. So the question I have - is that low fuel pressure the cause for concern I think it is? If so, what might be causing it, and how would I fix it? Or is it normal? What do other people see in climb to 10000'? Though I can use the boost pump for climbs to higher altitudes (and I've heard of some certified aircraft that suggest it), it doesn't strike me as an appropriate measure if the boost pump were to fail. 2. Rate of climb at high altitudes: I haven't constructed the wheel pants yet, so I know performance will improve when they're done. At low altitudes I certainly can't complain about rate of climb - with 450 pounds of fuel and me, I did a short field takeoff today climbing out at about 85 knots and saw a 2150 fpm climb rate. But when I got up near the 10000' point, at 110 KIAS, I was only getting around 500 fpm. I haven't done proper climb charts yet, but since I've heard of lots of people cruising in the RV-10 at 15000'-17000', how are they getting up there? My climb was at full rich, as I've been taught to do in lower performing planes - is it standard practice to lean out the mixture in climbs up at that altitude for more power? Or perhaps a slower climb speed/steeper angle than my 110 KIAS? 3. Performance in general: I did some airspeed indicator calibrations today at different power settings at 3200', and ended up with the following true airspeeds: 25"/2500RPM: 150 knots, 24"/2400 RPM: 147 knots, 23"/2300 RPM: 141 knots, 21"/2300 RPM: 134 knots, 18"/2300 RPM: 118 knots, 16"/2200 RPM: 103 knots. These numbers are without wheel pants, but with that in mind, do they seem reasonable? Vans' web site suggests cruise at 171 knots at 75% power at 8000'. I know that claims should be taken with a grain of salt, and I didn't run these tests at 8000', but if my calculations are correct, at 25"/2500 RPM I should have been producing about 80% power. Is it expected that the wheel pants and/or a higher altitude are going to make a significant enough improvement to get closer to Van's numbers? 4. CHT temps: To break in the engine, I've been running it pretty hard - usually around 25"/2500 most of the time (with some cycling to 25"/2600 or down to 24"/2400 to avoid building a ridge in the cylinder). In cruise with those power settings, my cylinders 3 and 4 run comparatively cool at around 375F. Cylinders 2, 5, and 6 are about 410F, but cylinder 1 is a bit of an anomaly. Usually it's the hottest of all, getting up to around 440 (5 degrees hotter than Lycoming's recommendation for maximum service life), though there have been a few times where it's dropped rather abruptly by 50-60 degrees (for no apparent reason I can see), making it surprisingly suddenly the coolest cylinder. But it doesn't stay there - after awhile, it climbs back up to step in line with what cylinders 2, 5, and 6 are doing... but usually stays 20-30 degrees hotter than the rest. Outside temperatures have been around 30-40 Fahrenheit during the flights so far. Of course, at lower power settings, the CHTs all drop down to well under 400. And all power settings, the engine operation has been very smooth - no roughness at all. I can reduce the height of the dam in front of cylinder 1, and I've heard of lots of people having to do that. But especially with the strange temperature fluctuations I'm still not sure if it's fully broken in yet, so I've been holding off until things settle. Has anyone else noticed a hot cylinder 1, and if so, how much of the front dam did you remove to cool it down? The good thing is my centre two cylinders seem plenty cool so I should be able to sacrifice some of their airflow to get #1 down. 5. Break in: I've flown the engine pretty hard now for 9 hours, but haven't seen any dramatic sign of CHTs reducing as is supposed to happen with a break in (with that said, the engine was run in at Lycoming for about an hour, and about 45 minutes on the ground under supervision of an aircraft engine shop for further break in before first flight). Other indications like "until the oil consumption has stabilized" haven't helped either - I put in about 3/4 quart of oil at about the 6 hour mark, but that's been it.... so far, it hasn't used excessive oil, and as I've only added oil once, I'm unsure of how to even define "stabilized". Now that I'm at the 9 hour mark for flight (11 hours on the engine overall), should I conclude that the engine is probably broken in about as good as it's going to get, or should I still be holding out for a noticeable drop in CHTs? Sorry for the long email! But if anyone has any suggestions, advice, or comments on any of these or other issues, I'd certainly appreciate hearing from you! I'm looking forward to meeting with some of you at fly ins, as soon as I finish flying off the 25 hours I need to do first! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: Re: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
Date: Jan 31, 2017
Hi John. Thanks for sending your data along for comparison. > I have just been looking at my numbers from the AFS 4500 System on my Rv10 > with the IO-540 D4A5, > Your performance numbers are pretty much the same as mine so when you get > your wheel Pants and Spats sorted out I think you > Will have no trouble getting better than 170 KTAS. The best I have seen on > mine so far has been 173 at 9000 ft WOT. That's encouraging! Good to hear that I'm not way out in left field. > > As for CHTs they seem a bit high from what I am seeing here. I have to > convert my numbers for you because here in VH we > use a Hybrid system where volume and Temp are metric. In Canada we use a hybrid system too, but not so straightforward as you. We tend to use metric for most things too, except when it comes to people and buildings. Everyone knows their weight and height in pounds and feet - nobody has the slightest idea how many kg or metres they are. For buildings we tend to use how many feet high they are, how many feet high in area, etc. In rural areas, places are considered to be so many miles apart, but highway sign posts and "city people" think in kilometres. Outside temperatures are in degrees C, except for things like oven temperatures, which are in Fahrenheit. For flying, perhaps because we're right beside the US, nothing is done in metric... except outside temperature :-) > You don't show Fuel > flow numbers for your figures but at Sea Level > We look for 96 litres /hour which if I convert for you is 25.4 gph. I got about 22 gph on takeoff and initial climb to 1000' AGL, so that seems at least comparable to your numbers (our airport is 2200 feet MSL). On the climb I did to 10000', at full rich mixture, my fuel flow was between 20-22 gph (though my fuel flow transducer hasn't been calibrated yet against real world usage, so those readings may be off a bit). Just the pressure that went down. > > Climbing to 7500 ft and WOT the highest my CHTs got was around 198 deg C > which is 388 deg F. > This was when the engine had about 25 hours on it. The Delta from OAT of 25 > deg (77 F ) was 173 deg C or (311 deg F). > Now that the engine has about 85 hours on it, it is running a little cooler > with the Hottest being 194 C (381 deg F) for a delta of > 167 deg C (301 deg F). > > So putting a few more hours on it have made the temps come down a bit, by a > around 10 deg F. I'm going to be plugging up some of the gaps in baffles under the cowl to improve cooling over the next little while to try and get the CHTs down as much as I can. And of course, removing a large part of the dam in front of cylinder 1. > > As for your #1 Cylinder doing funny stuff, I had my number 2 doing a similar > thing. It would go high at full power > and then flip suddenly to under all the others when I leaned the engine. It > turned out it was a partially blocked > Injector. I couldn't work out what it was in there except that I could see a > very slight whisker of something in the > Orifice when I looked through it. We couldn't get it out with air or an > Ultrasonic Cleaner, so I resorted to a > Very fine piece (much finer than the drill size of the orifice) of copper > wire to poke it out. Problem fixed! Interesting you should say this. In looking at my data, I originally thought that the drops in temps for cylinder 1 seemed to happen randomly, but on closer investigation, it looks like it might have happened a few times where I leaned more aggressively. And I'd also recently read in one of the many CHT/EGT information sheets online that this could be due to a partially blocked injector as you experienced. I'd definitely like to pull the injector and take a look, as in hearing from what happened to you, I'm thinking it even more likely that this may be a possibility for me. It's certainly something I need to check, if for no other reason than to rule it out. But I haven't touched the injectors yet - they were pre-installed on the factory Lycoming. Before I pull the injector for cylinder 1 to look at it, is there a gasket involved that I should have a replacement for? Or can the gasket (if any) on the injector be re-used? > So after all of that check your Fuel flow is above 25 Gph at sea level on > takeoff just to be sure that the Servo > Is giving the Engine enough fuel. According to my fuel flow transducer, it's slightly less (about 22 gph) at 2200'. But that's just off the factory "default" calibration of the transducer, so it may be a bit off. And I'm not sure if the 2200' elevation would have that much an effect on fuel flow either. When I did a flow test with the fuel line disconnected to the servo, using the boost pump before my first flight, it was able to pump about 50 gph, so at least then, there didn't seem to be any major flow restrictions (or if there were, the boost pump was able to overcome them). But things may have settled or particles gotten trapped in my filters over the past few flights I've done. At any rate, over the next day or two I'm going to be pulling apart the filters to look for contamination, and checking the fuel lines carefully to see if any air might be leaking into the lines. Thanks for your numbers and sharing your experiences! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dlm <dlm34077(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 01, 2017
Subject: static air
I believe in the belt and suspenders approach; I used both. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Miller <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
Date: Feb 01, 2017
My experience is much thee same as Tim says below. I found that 125kts climb keeps my cylinders the coolest in climbs and you dont sacrifice much in rate of climb either. And like Tim, on the days when my pressure drops while climbing (usually on warm temp days) I just turn on the fuel pump or silence the warning. So far, no engine stumbling when the pressure drops down to around 12 as Tim has seen. grumpy N184JM flying since 2007 > On Jan 31, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > At higher altitudes the fuel will vaporize easier. Additionally, most > of the time while you're climbing the airflow thru the cowl isn't > as good. So, you have heat buildup causing vapor, and altitude making > vapor easier to form. With the fuel pump behind the > engine, it's in an area of higher heat. So, vapor can be a > problem. There are PLENTY of people who have noticed this > in their RV-10s. There are some who have not. > I certainly wouldn't replace a fuel pump over it, because it > is common enough that I don't believe it to be highly abnormal. > This has happened to me maybe 25 times or 30 times in > 1200 hours...maybe more, but not every flight. Usually > it happens when I get over 8000'. Never has the pressure > actually dropped enough that the engine felt it. > I have seen as low as 12PSI. Leaning for climb helps, > because you reduce the flow which increases the pressure. > Climbing slower helps because you cool better. > > I HAVE seen it happen where running the boost pump for 30 seconds > takes care of it and it doesn't re-occur. Other times it may > come back in a minute or two. Maybe it's a pocket of vapor > that gets blow thru with the boost pump. Either way, the > important thing is you know it's happening and most EFIS > systems will audibly alert you. When I get the alert I > just look at the gauge, turn on the pump, and the problem > is over. > > I did buy a fuel pump cooling shroud from Aircraft Spruce at one > with the intent of adding blast cooling to my fuel pump. > I never bothered to install it because it's kind of a > pain to get into that area and install it, or even > replace the fuel pump in the first place. I decided that > it wasn't worth the effort for an occasional occurrence. > > It's not bad that you're going to go thru all the inspection work, > but I wouldn't sweat it too much about the fuel pressure in > climb unless it happens to you all the time. Try climbing > at 120kts and try a few things before you spend too > much worry over it. > > Tim > > > > > > On 1/31/2017 4:32 AM, Dan Charrois wrote: >> What I just don't understand though is why at low altitude and high >> power settings (25"/2500, and around 20 gph), I'm seeing an OK fuel >> pressure of around 22 psi.. but for some reason when I did my climb, >> the pressure went way down even though the flow stayed the same.. and >> then when I got back to a lower altitude, the pressure went right >> back up again. I'm not sure if it was related to altitude, high >> power for an extended period, or climb attitude. Once I finish going >> through the system for leakage, blockages, etc. and get the plane >> back in the air, if I'm still having trouble, my plan is to try a >> step climb to try and isolate whether altitude or attitude is more >> likely causing the issue in the first place. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: Re: Another RV-10 flying! (with some performance questions)
Date: Feb 01, 2017
> On 2017-Feb-01, at 5:19 PM, John Miller wrote: > > > My experience is much thee same as Tim says below. I found that 125kts climb keeps my cylinders the coolest in climbs and you dont sacrifice much in rate of climb either. > > And like Tim, on the days when my pressure drops while climbing (usually on warm temp days) I just turn on the fuel pump or silence the warning. > > So far, no engine stumbling when the pressure drops down to around 12 as Tim has seen. > Thanks for yours, Tim's, and others' feedback on this. I think the bottom line is I'll still investigate the fuel lines and filters for blockages or leaks, and see if anything simple can be done to keep the area around the fuel pump cooler (none of that can hurt anything), but not to sweat it too much. Though some people have never seen this issue, quite a few have, and their planes are still flying fine. It's definitely something I'll be watching closely for the next little while though. Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robert Jones <rjones560xl(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 02, 2017
Subject: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
This is my first post. I have found theses pages incredibly valuable place to get information and educate myself. Some of you serial posters (TIM) have been extremely helpful without even knowing I exist. I need to choose a propeller in the next few months. I have a Barrett Precision 540 with cold air induction, PCU governor, B&C light weight starter, alternator, and standby alternator in my garrage. It produced 288hp on the dyno. I am using Brian's (Showplanes) cowl because it fits the Barrett with cold air induction. Brian told me I needed a 15 spinner with his cowl and I can see why. I used the MATCO wheels/brakes kit they sell for the RV10 including their front axle with Goodyear Flight Custom III tires and the butyl tubes. I am thinking about using the RV10 propeller from Whirlwind and their 200/400 Rocket spinner. It is very light and I would like to move the battery forward if possible even if I have to buy a lithium/iron battery to keep the weight down. I know the Whirlwind is expensive. I am willing to pay for it if it is a good performer and it is reliable. I should probably look at the TBO and AD situation for the current model. I just want to know if anyone has already had any experience with it, good or bad. The Hartzel a lot of you chose is the only other one I am considering, and yes I looked at the MT. Three bladed props are a little smoother and have more ground clearance. They are likely just a little slower and make getting the bottom cowl off more difficult. Any thoughts about either of these choices would be appreciated, even if you a pitching something I have not considered. I suspect there may be some issues that I have not considered. I just don't know what they might be or where to look. Robert Jones ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
Date: Feb 02, 2017
I have exactly your setup and went with the MT prop. Smooth as silk with the Barrett. The great thing about the MT is NO time limit and hasn't had an AD yet. It's also cheaper than the Hartzell three blade. Having spent a lot of time in


December 02, 2016 - February 02, 2017

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-mk