RV10-Archive.digest.vol-ml

February 02, 2017 - February 27, 2017



      RV10s with two and three blade props, the three blade is FAR superior in smoothness
      and climb rate. Maybe a "touch" slower but I'm NOT convinced that it is.
      A BPE with any three prop is fantastic!
      
      Sent from my iPad
      
      > On Feb 2, 2017, at 2:27 PM, Robert Jones  wrote:
      > 
      > 
      > 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
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Date: Feb 02, 2017
Danny, you write: > ..... The great thing about the MT is NO time limit and hasn't had an AD yet. I wonder what this is based on as Hartzell as well as MT have the 72 months or 2400 hrs as far as I know? Cheers Werner ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Date: Feb 02, 2017
Subject: Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
Robert, As you have investigated the WW prop, I assume you have decided the 650 hour tear down is worth the pain. I suggest you talk to current WW prop owners about the logistics of shipping these props and such. There is a plethora of data on RV-10 props and how they perform, and the standard Hartzell BA 2 blade prop has not been surpassed for overall speed performance. There is also the obvious huge price bump for the three blade options. In short, is a reported smoother prop worth all the down side? All the weight reduction efforts you have listed would not come close to making up the speed hit. But - to each his own. My point here is to make sure you have balanced your equations for this selection. Carl Nomex suit on as I suspect I'm stepping on toes. > On Feb 2, 2017, at 3:16 PM, Robert Jones wrote: > > > 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 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: BPA Engine Oil Quick Grain - PIREP
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Feb 02, 2017
Hi I have A Barret Precision Engine that doesn't (or didn't) have an oil quick drain. It used an AN10 Tee with a cap due to how oil system was setup. For the past couple of years I have been talking with SAF-Air at KOSH hoping they would design an adapter for use with one of their quick drain values. A few days I received what I think is one of their first adapters. It connects the AN10 male end of the TEE to a straight thread male drain with enough internal clearance top all the drain to operate. What I didn't expect, but really like is that the drain hose connection portion" can be removed and replaced with a knurled cap with an O-Ring. That way if the drain valve leaks / weeps the cap catches / stops it from being a problem. There are pre-drilled holes for safety wire so the everything is and remains secure. Operating the drain is simplicity itself. Simply remove the cap and screw on the hose connection. As the connection is tightened, it opens the drain vale and oil comes out. Attached are a couple of pix sowing the install. The first has the cap on. The second shows the cap removed and the hose connection installed. No oil is coming out (yet) as it is hasn 't been tightened. It is not on their website yet so if you are interest you will call to call. Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465666#465666 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_6155_138.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_6156_186.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
Date: Feb 03, 2017
Well that's what the paper work from MT said. If you are flying part 135 then there is a time limit for sure. Sent from my iPad > On Feb 2, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Werner Schneider wrote: > > > Danny, > > you write: > >> ..... The great thing about the MT is NO time limit and hasn't had an AD yet. > > I wonder what this is based on as Hartzell as well as MT have the 72 months or 2400 hrs as far as I know? > > Cheers Werner > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
Date: Feb 03, 2017
There is virtually NO speed difference against a Barrett engine with three blade and a regular engine from Van's or where ever with a two blade. And they are very much smoother and lighter than a metal two blade. I weighed them both. Sent from my iPad > On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:12 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > > > Robert, > > As you have investigated the WW prop, I assume you have decided the 650 hour tear down is worth the pain. I suggest you talk to current WW prop owners about the logistics of shipping these props and such. > > There is a plethora of data on RV-10 props and how they perform, and the standard Hartzell BA 2 blade prop has not been surpassed for overall speed performance. There is also the obvious huge price bump for the three blade options. In short, is a reported smoother prop worth all the down side? All the weight reduction efforts you have listed would not come close to making up the speed hit. > > But - to each his own. My point here is to make sure you have balanced your equations for this selection. > > Carl > Nomex suit on as I suspect I'm stepping on toes. > >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 3:16 PM, Robert Jones wrote: >> >> >> 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: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Date: Feb 02, 2017
Subject: Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
Yep - add power and the fuel to get it and you go faster. Carl RV-10, 188 kt TAS, 25" @ 2500 RPM, stock IO-540 and Hartzell 2 bladed prop > On Feb 2, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Danny Riggs wrote: > > > There is virtually NO speed difference against a Barrett engine with three blade and a regular engine from Van's or where ever with a two blade. And they are very much smoother and lighter than a metal two blade. I weighed them both. > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:12 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: >> >> >> Robert, >> >> As you have investigated the WW prop, I assume you have decided the 650 hour tear down is worth the pain. I suggest you talk to current WW prop owners about the logistics of shipping these props and such. >> >> There is a plethora of data on RV-10 props and how they perform, and the standard Hartzell BA 2 blade prop has not been surpassed for overall speed performance. There is also the obvious huge price bump for the three blade options. In short, is a reported smoother prop worth all the down side? All the weight reduction efforts you have listed would not come close to making up the speed hit. >> >> But - to each his own. My point here is to make sure you have balanced your equations for this selection. >> >> Carl >> Nomex suit on as I suspect I'm stepping on toes. >> >>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 3:16 PM, Robert Jones wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 02, 2017
Subject: Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
Something isn't stock about your speed. You are 5 mph above Van's stated max speed at light weight, and 15 above their stated 75% cruise speed at light wt. I don't know whether your speed is a 3/4 course GPS speed, EFIS calculated speed or something else. Don't have precise charts with me at moment, but I think 25 sq is a bit above 75% -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> > > Yep - add power and the fuel to get it and you go faster. > > Carl > RV-10, 188 kt TAS, 25" @ 2500 RPM, stock IO-540 and Hartzell 2 bladed prop > > > On Feb 2, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Danny Riggs wrote: > > > > > > There is virtually NO speed difference against a Barrett engine with > three blade and a regular engine from Van's or where ever with a two blade. > And they are very much smoother and lighter than a metal two blade. I > weighed them both. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:12 PM, Carl Froehlich > wrote: > >> > carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> > >> > >> Robert, > >> > >> As you have investigated the WW prop, I assume you have decided the 650 > hour tear down is worth the pain. I suggest you talk to current WW prop > owners about the logistics of shipping these props and such. > >> > >> There is a plethora of data on RV-10 props and how they perform, and > the standard Hartzell BA 2 blade prop has not been surpassed for overall > speed performance. There is also the obvious huge price bump for the three > blade options. In short, is a reported smoother prop worth all the down > side? All the weight reduction efforts you have listed would not come > close to making up the speed hit. > >> > >> But - to each his own. My point here is to make sure you have balanced > your equations for this selection. > >> > >> Carl > >> Nomex suit on as I suspect I'm stepping on toes. > >> > >>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 3:16 PM, Robert Jones > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Date: Feb 03, 2017
Thanks Danny, I guess you are aware of: http://www.mt-propeller.com/pdf/sbs/sb1r1.pdf Page 6 states: MTV-12-B-(**)/(**)193-53 Lycoming (I)O-540-( ) 1800 hrs 72months Cheers Werner > On 03.02.2017 02:00, Danny Riggs wrote: >> >> Well that's what the paper work from MT said. If you are flying part 135 then there is a time limit for sure. >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
Date: Feb 03, 2017
Nope that's news to me. Has a 2016 date on the SB. That wasn't in the paperwork I got with mine from three years ago. Some SB's are good and some are to cover their a*ses. This looks like one of the latter. To each his own however! Thanks for the update. Danny Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 3, 2017, at 12:58 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: > > > Thanks Danny, > > I guess you are aware of: > > http://www.mt-propeller.com/pdf/sbs/sb1r1.pdf > > Page 6 states: > > MTV-12-B-(**)/(**)193-53 Lycoming (I)O-540-( ) 1800 hrs 72months > > Cheers Werner > >>> On 03.02.2017 02:00, Danny Riggs wrote: >>> >>> Well that's what the paper work from MT said. If you are flying part 135 then there is a time limit for sure. >>> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Feb 03, 2017
One other consideration for the MT is whether or not you are running a non-certified ignition system. MT does not warranty their propellers if the engine is using a non-certified ignition. I am guessing that is not an issue with Whirlwind, but is worth checking. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465698#465698 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
Date: Feb 03, 2017
Kelly, The plane has a stock engine and prop (other than injectors changed as needed to balance the cylinders), and still flying with these !#&$ mags as I wait for the six cylinder pMag. I tried to keep the plane light (1659 pounds empty after a relatively heavy basecoat/clearcoat paint job). I also spend a bunch of hours on rigging. To be fair, the top speed run was done solo at 6500=99 with half tanks and the engine ROP. Airframe modifications include: =C2=B7 James cowl and plenum =C2=B7 James wheel pants =C2=B7 Modified air box =C2=B7 Extra shim under the HS forward spar (not really sure if this does much but the elevators seem to me more in trail with the shim) =C2=B7 Not yet done is to put the damns back in front of #1 and #2 cylinders, but much shorter than what I started with The plane was set up from the start for high efficiency LOP cruise. The downside is the reduced cooling drag requires 125-130 kt climb speed to keep the jugs cool, so no pointing the nose up and hanging on the prop. The attached screen shot is a typical cross country set up. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 9:58 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Whirlwind Propeller RV10 Something isn't stock about your speed. You are 5 mph above Van's stated max speed at light weight, and 15 above their stated 75% cruise speed at light wt. I don't know whether your speed is a 3/4 course GPS speed, EFIS calculated speed or something else. Don't have precise charts with me at moment, but I think 25 sq is a bit above 75% -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: Yep - add power and the fuel to get it and you go faster. Carl RV-10, 188 kt TAS, 25" @ 2500 RPM, stock IO-540 and Hartzell 2 bladed prop > On Feb 2, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Danny Riggs wrote: > > > There is virtually NO speed difference against a Barrett engine with three blade and a regular engine from Van's or where ever with a two blade. And they are very much smoother and lighter than a metal two blade. I weighed them both. > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:12 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote: >> >> >> Robert, >> >> As you have investigated the WW prop, I assume you have decided the 650 hour tear down is worth the pain. I suggest you talk to current WW prop owners about the logistics of shipping these props and such. >> >> There is a plethora of data on RV-10 props and how they perform, and the standard Hartzell BA 2 blade prop has not been surpassed for overall speed performance. There is also the obvious huge price bump for the three blade options. In short, is a reported smoother prop worth all the down side? All the weight reduction efforts you have listed would not come close to making up the speed hit. >> >> But - to each his own. My point here is to make sure you have balanced your equations for this selection. >> >> Carl >> Nomex suit on as I suspect I'm stepping on toes. >> >>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 3:16 PM, Robert Jones wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > -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: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 03, 2017
Subject: Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
So far, I don't recall any replies addressing the Whirlwind prop. I was disappointed when I went to the Whirlwind website and couldn't find any information on a prop for the IO-540, in fact nothing except for 4 cyl and radial engines. While I'm sure the discussion of Hartzell 2 blade vs MT 3 blade is helpful, getting details about the Whirlwind would be better. I see that their standard RV-10 prop is an 80" 2 blade, and they also offer a 3 blade. I see the warranty is better on the 2 blade. On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Robert Jones wrote: > > > 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. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 03, 2017
Subject: Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
Carl, Thanks for the detail. I can only guess that your cowl and wheel pants are part of the difference. I too am using mags, but the more stout Bendix 1200 series, which so far have been flawless. I am convinced that aerodynamic clean-up does a lot more for speed than adding power. I was guessing your top speed had to be somewhere near 6500-7500 ft. You have certainly bested the factory numbers. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > Kelly, > > > The plane has a stock engine and prop (other than injectors changed as > needed to balance the cylinders), and still flying with these !#&$ mags a s > I wait for the six cylinder pMag. I tried to keep the plane light (1659 > pounds empty after a relatively heavy basecoat/clearcoat paint job). I > also spend a bunch of hours on rigging. To be fair, the top speed run wa s > done solo at 6500=99 with half tanks and the engine ROP. Airframe > modifications include: > > =C2=B7 James cowl and plenum > > =C2=B7 James wheel pants > > =C2=B7 Modified air box > > =C2=B7 Extra shim under the HS forward spar (not really sure if t his > does much but the elevators seem to me more in trail with the shim) > > =C2=B7 Not yet done is to put the damns back in front of #1 and # 2 > cylinders, but much shorter than what I started with > > > The plane was set up from the start for high efficiency LOP cruise. The > downside is the reduced cooling drag requires 125-130 kt climb speed to > keep the jugs cool, so no pointing the nose up and hanging on the prop. > The attached screen shot is a typical cross country set up. > > > Carl > > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list- > server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Kelly McMullen > *Sent:* Thursday, February 02, 2017 9:58 PM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Whirlwind Propeller RV10 > > > Something isn't stock about your speed. You are 5 mph above Van's stated > max speed at light weight, and 15 above their stated 75% cruise speed at > light wt. I don't know whether your speed is a 3/4 course GPS speed, EFIS > calculated speed or something else. > > Don't have precise charts with me at moment, but I think 25 sq is a bit > above 75% > > > -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Carl Froehlich > wrote: > > carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> > > Yep - add power and the fuel to get it and you go faster. > > Carl > RV-10, 188 kt TAS, 25" @ 2500 RPM, stock IO-540 and Hartzell 2 bladed pro p > > > > On Feb 2, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Danny Riggs wrote: > > > > > > There is virtually NO speed difference against a Barrett engine with > three blade and a regular engine from Van's or where ever with a two blad e. > And they are very much smoother and lighter than a metal two blade. I > weighed them both. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:12 PM, Carl Froehlich > wrote: > >> > carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> > >> > >> Robert, > >> > >> As you have investigated the WW prop, I assume you have decided the 65 0 > hour tear down is worth the pain. I suggest you talk to current WW prop > owners about the logistics of shipping these props and such. > >> > >> There is a plethora of data on RV-10 props and how they perform, and > the standard Hartzell BA 2 blade prop has not been surpassed for overall > speed performance. There is also the obvious huge price bump for the thr ee > blade options. In short, is a reported smoother prop worth all the down > side? All the weight reduction efforts you have listed would not come > close to making up the speed hit. > >> > >> But - to each his own. My point here is to make sure you have balance d > your equations for this selection. > >> > >> Carl > >> Nomex suit on as I suspect I'm stepping on toes. > >> > >>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 3:16 PM, Robert Jones > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> 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 probabl y > look at the TBO and AD situation for the current model. I just want to kn ow > if anyone has already had any experience with it, good or bad. The Hartze l > a lot of you chose is the only other one I am considering, and yes I look ed > 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 bott om > 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 migh t > be or where to look. > >>> > >>> Robert Jones > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > ======================== =========== > -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/contributio n > ======================== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
Date: Feb 03, 2017
Try this link: http://www.whirlwindaviation.com/props/rvseries.asp Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:21 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Whirlwind Propeller RV10 So far, I don't recall any replies addressing the Whirlwind prop. I was disappointed when I went to the Whirlwind website and couldn't find any information on a prop for the IO-540, in fact nothing except for 4 cyl and radial engines. While I'm sure the discussion of Hartzell 2 blade vs MT 3 blade is helpful, getting details about the Whirlwind would be better. I see that their standard RV-10 prop is an 80" 2 blade, and they also offer a 3 blade. I see the warranty is better on the 2 blade. On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Robert Jones wrote: 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. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 03, 2017
Subject: Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
Yes, I found it....curious why there are different sites for ground adjustable series and constant speed. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > Try this link: http://www.whirlwindaviation.com/props/rvseries.asp > > > Carl > > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list- > server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Kelly McMullen > *Sent:* Friday, February 03, 2017 10:21 AM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Whirlwind Propeller RV10 > > > So far, I don't recall any replies addressing the Whirlwind prop. I was > disappointed when I went to the Whirlwind website and couldn't find any > information on a prop for the IO-540, in fact nothing except for 4 cyl and > radial engines. While I'm sure the discussion of Hartzell 2 blade vs MT 3 > blade is helpful, getting details about the Whirlwind would be better. I > see that their standard RV-10 prop is an 80" 2 blade, and they also offer a > 3 blade. I see the warranty is better on the 2 blade. > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Robert Jones > wrote: > > > 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. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Ordering Specs for Rebuilt Mags (not electronic ignition)
Date: Feb 03, 2017
I have a bit over 800 hours and 5.5 years on my Slicks and am ready to replace with a 'new' set of rebuilt units. They are operating just fine but I'm thinking it's a good thing to do at this point. I have a stock Lycoming/Vans IO-540-D4A5 Can anyone share the ordering information for replacements? Best sources? I was looking a ACS and elsewhere and it seems there are multiple part numbers used in multiple places. Just trying to cut through the paper storm without getting smart first. BTW, I did get versed in teardown and maintenance when I did the excessive point wear SB at 100 hours. I'm choosing to replace. Thanks --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 03, 2017
Subject: Re: Ordering Specs for Rebuilt Mags (not electronic ignition)
Most of the usual suppliers of aircraft parts will stock overhauled mags. However, if you choose to stay with Slick, as opposed to Bendix, I would strongly consider the price delta for new Slick. Looks like extra $250-300 for a new mag over rebuilt. The irony is that overhauled Bendix mags look to be less money than overhauled Slick. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Bill Watson wrote: > > I have a bit over 800 hours and 5.5 years on my Slicks and am ready to > replace with a 'new' set of rebuilt units. They are operating just fine > but I'm thinking it's a good thing to do at this point. > > I have a stock Lycoming/Vans IO-540-D4A5 > > Can anyone share the ordering information for replacements? Best sources? > > I was looking a ACS and elsewhere and it seems there are multiple part > numbers used in multiple places. Just trying to cut through the paper > storm without getting smart first. > > BTW, I did get versed in teardown and maintenance when I did the excessive > point wear SB at 100 hours. I'm choosing to replace. > > Thanks > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ordering Specs for Rebuilt Mags (not electronic ignition)
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Feb 03, 2017
I want to stay with Slicks because that's what the engine came with and I have a few tools and a little experience working with them. I want to replace them with 'rebuilt' Slick mags and not 'overhauled' Slick mags. And I intend to get a 'core credit' for exchanging my old ones. Bill 'not quite overwhelmed yet by all the ignition options yet' Watson On 2/3/2017 3:38 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > Most of the usual suppliers of aircraft parts will stock overhauled > mags. However, if you choose to stay with Slick, as opposed to Bendix, > I would strongly consider the price delta for new Slick. Looks like > extra $250-300 for a new mag over rebuilt. The irony is that > overhauled Bendix mags look to be less money than overhauled Slick. > > -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Bill Watson > wrote: > > > > > I have a bit over 800 hours and 5.5 years on my Slicks and am > ready to replace with a 'new' set of rebuilt units. They are > operating just fine but I'm thinking it's a good thing to do at > this point. > > I have a stock Lycoming/Vans IO-540-D4A5 > > Can anyone share the ordering information for replacements? Best > sources? > > I was looking a ACS and elsewhere and it seems there are multiple > part numbers used in multiple places. Just trying to cut through > the paper storm without getting smart first. > > BTW, I did get versed in teardown and maintenance when I did the > excessive point wear SB at 100 hours. I'm choosing to replace. > > Thanks > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > =================================== > -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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 03, 2017
Subject: Re: Ordering Specs for Rebuilt Mags (not electronic ignition)
Understand. Keep in mind that IO-540s were built with Bendix mags long before conglomerate takeover of Lycoming forced the switch to Slick. Nothing wrong with Slicks that more frequent maintenance won't handle. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Bill Watson wrote: > I want to stay with Slicks because that's what the engine came with and I > have a few tools and a little experience working with them. > > I want to replace them with 'rebuilt' Slick mags and not 'overhauled' > Slick mags. And I intend to get a 'core credit' for exchanging my old ones. > > Bill 'not quite overwhelmed yet by all the ignition options yet' Watson > > On 2/3/2017 3:38 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > Most of the usual suppliers of aircraft parts will stock overhauled mags. > However, if you choose to stay with Slick, as opposed to Bendix, I would > strongly consider the price delta for new Slick. Looks like extra $250-300 > for a new mag over rebuilt. The irony is that overhauled Bendix mags look > to be less money than overhauled Slick. > > -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Bill Watson > wrote: > >> >> I have a bit over 800 hours and 5.5 years on my Slicks and am ready to >> replace with a 'new' set of rebuilt units. They are operating just fine >> but I'm thinking it's a good thing to do at this point. >> >> I have a stock Lycoming/Vans IO-540-D4A5 >> >> Can anyone share the ordering information for replacements? Best sources? >> >> I was looking a ACS and elsewhere and it seems there are multiple part >> numbers used in multiple places. Just trying to cut through the paper >> storm without getting smart first. >> >> BTW, I did get versed in teardown and maintenance when I did the >> excessive point wear SB at 100 hours. I'm choosing to replace. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> =================================== >> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navig >> ator?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 >> =================================== >> >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------ > [image: Avast logo] > > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Engine plugs to identify
Date: Feb 04, 2017
Guys In the back of my Lycoming IO-540, near the Oil Filter, there are 2 plugs that I'm not sure what they are for. I'm referring to those 2 which have the red female caps in the annexed photo. May I have your help to identify them? Thanks Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Feb 04, 2017
Subject: Re: Engine plugs to identify
The big one is the mechanical tach drive. They sell caos for that if it leak s oil. Many planes I see don't have the cap and don't leak. The small one I would need to see with the cap off. It is possibly an oil pr essure line port. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 4, 2017, at 7:32 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > Guys > > In the back of my Lycoming IO-540, near the Oil Filter, there are 2 plugs t hat I=99m not sure what they are for. > > I=99m referring to those 2 which have the red female caps in the ann exed photo. > > May I have your help to identify them? > > Thanks > Carlos > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Date: Feb 04, 2017
Subject: Re: Engine plugs to identify
Thanks Jesse The small (lower) one is a male AN6 flared tube fitting, which I intend to p lug with a AN929 plug. CT Enviado do meu iPhone No dia 04/02/2017, =C3-s 13:58, Jesse Saint escr eveu: > The big one is the mechanical tach drive. They sell caos for that if it le aks oil. Many planes I see don't have the cap and don't leak. > > The small one I would need to see with the cap off. It is possibly an oil p ressure line port. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > C: 352-427-0285 > F: 815-377-3694 > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Feb 4, 2017, at 7:32 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: >> >> Guys >> >> In the back of my Lycoming IO-540, near the Oil Filter, there are 2 plugs that I=99m not sure what they are for. >> >> I=99m referring to those 2 which have the red female caps in the an nexed photo. >> >> May I have your help to identify them? >> >> Thanks >> Carlos >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 04, 2017
Subject: Re: Engine plugs to identify
An AN6 fitting is not small. They are used for thinks like hoses to the oil cooler., Have you looked at the plans, FF1 if I remember correctly points out all the fittings you install. Then check the FF section for oil system to be sure you have all those fittings identified. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote : > Thanks Jesse > > The small (lower) one is a male AN6 flared tube fitting, which I intend t o > plug with a AN929 plug. > > CT > > Enviado do meu iPhone > > No dia 04/02/2017, =C3-s 13:58, Jesse Saint > escreveu: > > The big one is the mechanical tach drive. They sell caos for that if it > leaks oil. Many planes I see don't have the cap and don't leak. > > The small one I would need to see with the cap off. It is possibly an oil > pressure line port. > > 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 Feb 4, 2017, at 7:32 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > Guys > > > In the back of my Lycoming IO-540, near the Oil Filter, there are 2 plugs > that I=99m not sure what they are for. > > > I=99m referring to those 2 which have the red female caps in the an nexed > photo. > > > May I have your help to identify them? > > > Thanks > > Carlos > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Feb 04, 2017
Subject: Re: Engine plugs to identify
=46rom looking at an overhaul manual, it looks like sometimes that port is u sed for a spring-and-ball oil cooler bypass, and sometimes for an oil cooler return. It's too small for that in this case, I think. If you have both of y our AN8 lines already in for the oil cooler, then this should get capped. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad > On Feb 4, 2017, at 9:38 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > An AN6 fitting is not small. They are used for thinks like hoses to the oi l cooler., Have you looked at the plans, FF1 if I remember correctly points o ut all the fittings you install. Then check the FF section for oil system to be sure you have all those fittings identified. > > -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm > >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Carlos Trigo wro te: >> Thanks Jesse >> >> The small (lower) one is a male AN6 flared tube fitting, which I intend t o plug with a AN929 plug. >> >> CT >> >> Enviado do meu iPhone >> >> No dia 04/02/2017, =C3-s 13:58, Jesse Saint e screveu: >> >>> The big one is the mechanical tach drive. They sell caos for that if it l eaks oil. Many planes I see don't have the cap and don't leak. >>> >>> The small one I would need to see with the cap off. It is possibly an oi l pressure line port. >>> >>> Jesse Saint >>> Saint Aviation, Inc. >>> jesse(at)saintaviation.com >>> C: 352-427-0285 >>> F: 815-377-3694 >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Feb 4, 2017, at 7:32 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: >>>> >>>> Guys >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In the back of my Lycoming IO-540, near the Oil Filter, there are 2 plu gs that I=99m not sure what they are for. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I=99m referring to those 2 which have the red female caps in the a nnexed photo. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> May I have your help to identify them? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Carlos >>>> >>>> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Engine plugs to identify
Date: Feb 05, 2017
That=99s the problem Kelly The Van=99s manual doesn=99t explain all the fittings I found in the engine. I did install the oil system according to FF section, but after connecting the oil pressure and both Oil cooler in and out, these 2 plugs are free. Well, the higher one is indeed the Tachometer connection, which I will not use because I=99m using the Garmin RPM sensor in the Magneto. So, I think I=99ll leave the lower one with this red cap, or perhaps close it with the AN929 plug. Thanks Carlos De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Kelly McMullen Enviada: Sunday, February 5, 2017 2:38 AM Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine plugs to identify An AN6 fitting is not small. They are used for thinks like hoses to the oil cooler., Have you looked at the plans, FF1 if I remember correctly points out all the fittings you install. Then check the FF section for oil system to be sure you have all those fittings identified. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Carlos Trigo > wrote: Thanks Jesse The small (lower) one is a male AN6 flared tube fitting, which I intend to plug with a AN929 plug. CT Enviado do meu iPhone No dia 04/02/2017, =C3-s 13:58, Jesse Saint > escreveu: The big one is the mechanical tach drive. They sell caos for that if it leaks oil. Many planes I see don't have the cap and don't leak. The small one I would need to see with the cap off. It is possibly an oil pressure line port. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone On Feb 4, 2017, at 7:32 AM, Carlos Trigo > wrote: Guys In the back of my Lycoming IO-540, near the Oil Filter, there are 2 plugs that I=99m not sure what they are for. I=99m referring to those 2 which have the red female caps in the annexed photo. May I have your help to identify them? Thanks Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Engine plugs to identify
Date: Feb 05, 2017
Thanks Jesse Indeed I have both lines for the Oil Cooler connected according Van=99s manual, so I will cap this. If anyone else knows better what this is for, I am all ears Regards Carlos De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Jesse Saint Enviada: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:49 AM Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine plugs to identify >From looking at an overhaul manual, it looks like sometimes that port is used for a spring-and-ball oil cooler bypass, and sometimes for an oil cooler return. It's too small for that in this case, I think. If you have both of your AN8 lines already in for the oil cooler, then this should get capped. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad On Feb 4, 2017, at 9:38 PM, Kelly McMullen > wrote: An AN6 fitting is not small. They are used for thinks like hoses to the oil cooler., Have you looked at the plans, FF1 if I remember correctly points out all the fittings you install. Then check the FF section for oil system to be sure you have all those fittings identified. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Carlos Trigo > wrote: Thanks Jesse The small (lower) one is a male AN6 flared tube fitting, which I intend to plug with a AN929 plug. CT Enviado do meu iPhone No dia 04/02/2017, =C3-s 13:58, Jesse Saint > escreveu: The big one is the mechanical tach drive. They sell caos for that if it leaks oil. Many planes I see don't have the cap and don't leak. The small one I would need to see with the cap off. It is possibly an oil pressure line port. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone On Feb 4, 2017, at 7:32 AM, Carlos Trigo > wrote: Guys In the back of my Lycoming IO-540, near the Oil Filter, there are 2 plugs that I=99m not sure what they are for. I=99m referring to those 2 which have the red female caps in the annexed photo. May I have your help to identify them? Thanks Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Feb 05, 2017
Subject: Re: Engine plugs to identify
Definitely DO NOT just leave the red cap on the oil port. You want a strong c ap for it. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 5, 2017, at 7:51 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > That=99s the problem Kelly > The Van=99s manual doesn=99t explain all the fittings I found i n the engine. > I did install the oil system according to FF section, but after connecting the oil pressure and both Oil cooler in and out, these 2 plugs are free. > Well, the higher one is indeed the Tachometer connection, which I will not use because I=99m using the Garmin RPM sensor in the Magneto. > So, I think I=99ll leave the lower one with this red cap, or perhaps close it with the AN929 plug. > > Thanks > Carlos > > De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ma tronics.com] Em nome de Kelly McMullen > Enviada: Sunday, February 5, 2017 2:38 AM > Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine plugs to identify > > An AN6 fitting is not small. They are used for thinks like hoses to the oi l cooler., Have you looked at the plans, FF1 if I remember correctly points o ut all the fittings you install. Then check the FF section for oil system to be sure you have all those fittings identified. > > -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Carlos Trigo wrot e: > Thanks Jesse > > The small (lower) one is a male AN6 flared tube fitting, which I intend to plug with a AN929 plug. > > CT > > Enviado do meu iPhone > > No dia 04/02/2017, =C3-s 13:58, Jesse Saint es creveu: > > The big one is the mechanical tach drive. They sell caos for that if it le aks oil. Many planes I see don't have the cap and don't leak. > > The small one I would need to see with the cap off. It is possibly an oil p ressure line port. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > C: 352-427-0285 > F: 815-377-3694 > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 4, 2017, at 7:32 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > Guys > > In the back of my Lycoming IO-540, near the Oil Filter, there are 2 plugs t hat I=99m not sure what they are for. > > I=99m referring to those 2 which have the red female caps in the ann exed photo. > > May I have your help to identify them? > > Thanks > Carlos > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 05, 2017
Subject: Re: Engine plugs to identify
I agree. If you can't find a purpose for it in the overhaul or parts manual, definitely needs an AN cap. Plastic caps are only for shipping. They don't hold pressure and won't tolerate heat. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Jesse Saint wrote : > Definitely DO NOT just leave the red cap on the oil port. You want a > strong cap for it. > > 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 Feb 5, 2017, at 7:51 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > That=99s the problem Kelly > > The Van=99s manual doesn=99t explain all the fittings I found in the engine. > > I did install the oil system according to FF section, but after connectin g > the oil pressure and both Oil cooler in and out, these 2 plugs are free. > > Well, the higher one is indeed the Tachometer connection, which I will no t > use because I=99m using the Garmin RPM sensor in the Magneto. > > So, I think I=99ll leave the lower one with this red cap, or perhap s close > it with the AN929 plug. > > > Thanks > > Carlos > > > *De:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list- > server(at)matronics.com ] *Em nome de *Kelly > McMullen > *Enviada:* Sunday, February 5, 2017 2:38 AM > *Para:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Assunto:* Re: RV10-List: Engine plugs to identify > > > An AN6 fitting is not small. They are used for thinks like hoses to the > oil cooler., Have you looked at the plans, FF1 if I remember correctly > points out all the fittings you install. Then check the FF section for oi l > system to be sure you have all those fittings identified. > > > -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm > > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Carlos Trigo > wrote: > > Thanks Jesse > > > The small (lower) one is a male AN6 flared tube fitting, which I intend t o > plug with a AN929 plug. > > > CT > > Enviado do meu iPhone > > > No dia 04/02/2017, =C3-s 13:58, Jesse Saint > escreveu: > > The big one is the mechanical tach drive. They sell caos for that if it > leaks oil. Many planes I see don't have the cap and don't leak. > > > The small one I would need to see with the cap off. It is possibly an oil > pressure line port. > > 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 Feb 4, 2017, at 7:32 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > Guys > > > In the back of my Lycoming IO-540, near the Oil Filter, there are 2 plugs > that I=99m not sure what they are for. > > > I=99m referring to those 2 which have the red female caps in the an nexed > photo. > > > May I have your help to identify them? > > > Thanks > > Carlos > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Engine plugs to identify
Date: Feb 05, 2017
Ok, just did it! And for the Tachometer connection I won=99t use, where can I buy a cap for this? CT De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Jesse Saint Enviada: Sunday, February 5, 2017 1:28 PM Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine plugs to identify Definitely DO NOT just leave the red cap on the oil port. You want a strong cap for it. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone On Feb 5, 2017, at 7:51 AM, Carlos Trigo > wrote: That=99s the problem Kelly The Van=99s manual doesn=99t explain all the fittings I found in the engine. I did install the oil system according to FF section, but after connecting the oil pressure and both Oil cooler in and out, these 2 plugs are free. Well, the higher one is indeed the Tachometer connection, which I will not use because I=99m using the Garmin RPM sensor in the Magneto. So, I think I=99ll leave the lower one with this red cap, or perhaps close it with the AN929 plug. Thanks Carlos De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Kelly McMullen Enviada: Sunday, February 5, 2017 2:38 AM Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine plugs to identify An AN6 fitting is not small. They are used for thinks like hoses to the oil cooler., Have you looked at the plans, FF1 if I remember correctly points out all the fittings you install. Then check the FF section for oil system to be sure you have all those fittings identified. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Carlos Trigo > wrote: Thanks Jesse The small (lower) one is a male AN6 flared tube fitting, which I intend to plug with a AN929 plug. CT Enviado do meu iPhone No dia 04/02/2017, =C3-s 13:58, Jesse Saint > escreveu: The big one is the mechanical tach drive. They sell caos for that if it leaks oil. Many planes I see don't have the cap and don't leak. The small one I would need to see with the cap off. It is possibly an oil pressure line port. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone On Feb 4, 2017, at 7:32 AM, Carlos Trigo > wrote: Guys In the back of my Lycoming IO-540, near the Oil Filter, there are 2 plugs that I=99m not sure what they are for. I=99m referring to those 2 which have the red female caps in the annexed photo. May I have your help to identify them? Thanks Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Feb 05, 2017
Subject: Re: Engine plugs to identify
https://m.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/tachcap.php?clickkey=15828 Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 5, 2017, at 8:53 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > Ok, just did it! > And for the Tachometer connection I won=99t use, where can I buy a c ap for this? > > CT > > > De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ma tronics.com] Em nome de Jesse Saint > Enviada: Sunday, February 5, 2017 1:28 PM > Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine plugs to identify > > Definitely DO NOT just leave the red cap on the oil port. You want a stron g cap for it. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > C: 352-427-0285 > F: 815-377-3694 > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 5, 2017, at 7:51 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > That=99s the problem Kelly > The Van=99s manual doesn=99t explain all the fittings I found i n the engine. > I did install the oil system according to FF section, but after connecting the oil pressure and both Oil cooler in and out, these 2 plugs are free. > Well, the higher one is indeed the Tachometer connection, which I will not use because I=99m using the Garmin RPM sensor in the Magneto. > So, I think I=99ll leave the lower one with this red cap, or perhaps close it with the AN929 plug. > > Thanks > Carlos > > De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ma tronics.com] Em nome de Kelly McMullen > Enviada: Sunday, February 5, 2017 2:38 AM > Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Engine plugs to identify > > An AN6 fitting is not small. They are used for thinks like hoses to the oi l cooler., Have you looked at the plans, FF1 if I remember correctly points o ut all the fittings you install. Then check the FF section for oil system to be sure you have all those fittings identified. > > -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Carlos Trigo wrot e: > Thanks Jesse > > The small (lower) one is a male AN6 flared tube fitting, which I intend to plug with a AN929 plug. > > CT > > Enviado do meu iPhone > > No dia 04/02/2017, =C3-s 13:58, Jesse Saint es creveu: > > The big one is the mechanical tach drive. They sell caos for that if it le aks oil. Many planes I see don't have the cap and don't leak. > > The small one I would need to see with the cap off. It is possibly an oil p ressure line port. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > C: 352-427-0285 > F: 815-377-3694 > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 4, 2017, at 7:32 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > Guys > > In the back of my Lycoming IO-540, near the Oil Filter, there are 2 plugs t hat I=99m not sure what they are for. > > I=99m referring to those 2 which have the red female caps in the ann exed photo. > > May I have your help to identify them? > > Thanks > Carlos > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gulf" <fgcobble(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Ordering Specs for Rebuilt Mags (not electronic ignition)
Date: Feb 05, 2017
I bought a new Lycoming with mags =93 never used - looking to sell =93 if interested will send info and photos From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Watson Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 2:19 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Ordering Specs for Rebuilt Mags (not electronic ignition) I want to stay with Slicks because that's what the engine came with and I have a few tools and a little experience working with them. I want to replace them with 'rebuilt' Slick mags and not 'overhauled' Slick mags. And I intend to get a 'core credit' for exchanging my old ones. Bill 'not quite overwhelmed yet by all the ignition options yet' Watson On 2/3/2017 3:38 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: Most of the usual suppliers of aircraft parts will stock overhauled mags. However, if you choose to stay with Slick, as opposed to Bendix, I would strongly consider the price delta for new Slick. Looks like extra $250-300 for a new mag over rebuilt. The irony is that overhauled Bendix mags look to be less money than overhauled Slick. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Bill Watson wrote: I have a bit over 800 hours and 5.5 years on my Slicks and am ready to replace with a 'new' set of rebuilt units. They are operating just fine but I'm thinking it's a good thing to do at this point. I have a stock Lycoming/Vans IO-540-D4A5 Can anyone share the ordering information for replacements? Best sources? I was looking a ACS and elsewhere and it seems there are multiple part numbers used in multiple places. Just trying to cut through the paper storm without getting smart first. BTW, I did get versed in teardown and maintenance when I did the excessive point wear SB at 100 hours. I'm choosing to replace. Thanks --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -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 _____ Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ordering Specs for Rebuilt Mags (not electronic ignition)
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Feb 05, 2017
I'm very interested. Please send vitals to BillinDurham on the gmail domain. Thanks On 2/5/2017 10:28 AM, gulf wrote: > > I bought a new Lycoming with mags never used - looking to sell if > interested will send info and photos > > *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Watson > *Sent:* Friday, February 03, 2017 2:19 PM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Ordering Specs for Rebuilt Mags (not > electronic ignition) > > I want to stay with Slicks because that's what the engine came with > and I have a few tools and a little experience working with them. > > I want to replace them with 'rebuilt' Slick mags and not 'overhauled' > Slick mags. And I intend to get a 'core credit' for exchanging my old > ones. > > Bill 'not quite overwhelmed yet by all the ignition options yet' Watson > > On 2/3/2017 3:38 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > Most of the usual suppliers of aircraft parts will stock > overhauled mags. However, if you choose to stay with Slick, as > opposed to Bendix, I would strongly consider the price delta for > new Slick. Looks like extra $250-300 for a new mag over rebuilt. > The irony is that overhauled Bendix mags look to be less money > than overhauled Slick. > > > -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Bill Watson > > wrote: > > > > > I have a bit over 800 hours and 5.5 years on my Slicks and am > ready to replace with a 'new' set of rebuilt units. They are > operating just fine but I'm thinking it's a good thing to do at > this point. > > I have a stock Lycoming/Vans IO-540-D4A5 > > Can anyone share the ordering information for replacements? Best > sources? > > I was looking a ACS and elsewhere and it seems there are multiple > part numbers used in multiple places. Just trying to cut through > the paper storm without getting smart first. > > BTW, I did get versed in teardown and maintenance when I did the > excessive point wear SB at 100 hours. I'm choosing to replace. > > Thanks > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > ========== > -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 > =================================== > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: FS. Hartzell S-1-15 Prop Gov
From: "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com>
Date: Feb 08, 2017
This prop gov has an unusual history. It was purchased new and installed on an engine but never run. It was then removed to be used on an AOG rescue/ferry. It was flown for 1.5 hours on oil that was possibly contaminated. It was removed and sent to an authorized Hartzell shop where it was disassembled, cleaned (no contamination found), re-assembled with all new gaskets, O-rings, etc. It was then bench tested and calibrated for a wide body 540. Great chance to save hundreds on a quality "good as new" PG. Myron woxof"at"aol.com 602 421-2868 -------- Myron Nelson Mesa, AZ Flew May 10 2014 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465897#465897 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>
Subject: A lot of advice and perhaps a little help
Date: Feb 08, 2017
On November 30th I was entering the company IRA deposit... 5 pairs of numbers... something that should take me a couple of minutes at most. But, on that day, there seemed to be a strong glare in my office and I couldn't make out the numbers. I twisted the paper, moved it around in my field of vision... tried just one eye, then the other. 15 minutes later the work was done and whatever problem I was having with my vision seemed to have resolved itself. I went and got a big glass of water thinking that I might be dehydrated. The next day, I noticed a similar vision problem. It didn't last as long and I wasn't doing work that it interfered with... but it worried me a little. Later that afternoon I met with a customer in my office to discuss some new projects. He's a smart guy. He'd ask a question. I'd start in to the answer and before I could finish the sentence I could see that he was moving on to the next question... and I was having a progressively harder time actually finishing the sentences. Words were slightly out of order. I'd back up to get it right and the words kept coming out a little wrong. He didn't seem to notice. We finished our meeting and said our goodbyes. I immediately went to my office manager to tell her that something was wrong with me. She, with all the love and understanding of someone who has worked for me for almost 25 years said "well, don't tell me... tell you doctor... dork." So, the next morning I called my doctor on my way in to work. I pulled off to the side of the road as the nurse was getting the doctor to the phone. I explained to him what had happened the past couple of days. He said "I'd like you turn around and drive straight to the ER and get an MRI. This is the kind of stuff we don't mess with." So, that's what I did. By noon the MRI was complete and the results were back. I had two brain tumors. One rather small and one the size of a lemon. Something about the nature of the tumors indicated that they didn't start in the brain. So, a scan or two later it was determined that I have stage 4 lung cancer (never smoked). My GP came to the hospital and explained that this was the worst time of the week to discover something like this. We wanted to assemble the "A" team and the "A" team didn't work the weekends." So, I was released from the ER into the care of my wife with a few strong prescriptions and a few days to imagine all that might be before me. On Monday, as my GP was assembling his "A" team my parents were assembling theirs. Unbeknownst to me, good friends of theirs had just endowed the Chair of Oncology at The City of Hope. By Tuesday I was in the care of some of the very best doctors in the world. By the following Tuesday the large tumor was surgically removed and I was, somehow, still able to walk and talk... but not drive and certainly not fly. My prognosis, now, is "up in the air" so to speak. I've finished radiation therapy which finished off anything that might have remained of the large tumor and zapped the small one. I'm lucky, if you can call anything about this "lucky" to have certain biomarkers in my cancer that make it treatable with targeted therapy... which has the potential to make this a chronically managed disease as opposed to a death sentence. While targeted therapy drugs are a godsend... giving me a shot at watching my kids grow up... they are not allowed by the FAA. I'm going to have to sell my RV-10. That's where I need your advice and, perhaps a little help. N410CF has the following squawks. In my current condition I am unable to address most of them without help. That being said, what should I make sure is taken care of before putting the plane on the market? The plane is not painted It is out of annual (would love a checklist for the annual) POH is incomplete Wheel pants and fairings are fit and finished except for the upper intersection fairings The parking brake valve leaks The back up battery fuse has blown twice now The 1042G wire covers are not finish painted to match the interior Door locks are not installed AOA is not calibrated Needs a rudder trim tab An aileron trim tab wouldn't hurt 1 weeping rivet I'd like to thank you all for the camaraderie over the 11 plus years it took me to build it. It certainly would have been nice to be part of the flying community a bit longer but I don't regret a minute of the 4,874 hours I spent building it. Jeff Carpenter N410CF ________________________________________________________________________________
From: P Reid <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: A lot of advice and perhaps a little help
Date: Feb 09, 2017
Jeff; Really glad it was found and steps are being taken. I can help with some of these items. Maybe I should fly out and see if we can get that list minimized. The parking brake leak I think was resolved by Matco in one of there kits, if so we should be able to fix that, the Annual and POH is easily available and we can make the proper "specific" updates to reflect your plane. Get well and when you're ready we'll take care of the squawk list. Piece of cake! Pascal -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 8:44 PM Subject: RV10-List: A lot of advice and perhaps a little help On November 30th I was entering the company IRA deposit... 5 pairs of numbers... something that should take me a couple of minutes at most. But, on that day, there seemed to be a strong glare in my office and I couldn't make out the numbers. I twisted the paper, moved it around in my field of vision... tried just one eye, then the other. 15 minutes later the work was done and whatever problem I was having with my vision seemed to have resolved itself. I went and got a big glass of water thinking that I might be dehydrated. The next day, I noticed a similar vision problem. It didn't last as long and I wasn't doing work that it interfered with... but it worried me a little. Later that afternoon I met with a customer in my office to discuss some new projects. He's a smart guy. He'd ask a question. I'd start in to the answer and before I could finish the sentence I could see that he was moving on to the next question... and I was having a progressively harder time actually finishing the sentences. Words were slightly out of order. I'd back up to get it right and the words kept coming out a little wrong. He didn't seem to notice. We finished our meeting and said our goodbyes. I immediately went to my office manager to tell her that something was wrong with me. She, with all the love and understanding of someone who has worked for me for almost 25 years said "well, don't tell me... tell you doctor... dork." So, the next morning I called my doctor on my way in to work. I pulled off to the side of the road as the nurse was getting the doctor to the phone. I explained to him what had happened the past couple of days. He said "I'd like you turn around and drive straight to the ER and get an MRI. This is the kind of stuff we don't mess with." So, that's what I did. By noon the MRI was complete and the results were back. I had two brain tumors. One rather small and one the size of a lemon. Something about the nature of the tumors indicated that they didn't start in the brain. So, a scan or two later it was determined that I have stage 4 lung cancer (never smoked). My GP came to the hospital and explained that this was the worst time of the week to discover something like this. We wanted to assemble the "A" team and the "A" team didn't work the weekends." So, I was released from the ER into the care of my wife with a few strong prescriptions and a few days to imagine all that might be before me. On Monday, as my GP was assembling his "A" team my parents were assembling theirs. Unbeknownst to me, good friends of theirs had just endowed the Chair of Oncology at The City of Hope. By Tuesday I was in the care of some of the very best doctors in the world. By the following Tuesday the large tumor was surgically removed and I was, somehow, still able to walk and talk... but not drive and certainly not fly. My prognosis, now, is "up in the air" so to speak. I've finished radiation therapy which finished off anything that might have remained of the large tumor and zapped the small one. I'm lucky, if you can call anything about this "lucky" to have certain biomarkers in my cancer that make it treatable with targeted therapy... which has the potential to make this a chronically managed disease as opposed to a death sentence. While targeted therapy drugs are a godsend... giving me a shot at watching my kids grow up... they are not allowed by the FAA. I'm going to have to sell my RV-10. That's where I need your advice and, perhaps a little help. N410CF has the following squawks. In my current condition I am unable to address most of them without help. That being said, what should I make sure is taken care of before putting the plane on the market? The plane is not painted It is out of annual (would love a checklist for the annual) POH is incomplete Wheel pants and fairings are fit and finished except for the upper intersection fairings The parking brake valve leaks The back up battery fuse has blown twice now The 1042G wire covers are not finish painted to match the interior Door locks are not installed AOA is not calibrated Needs a rudder trim tab An aileron trim tab wouldn't hurt 1 weeping rivet I'd like to thank you all for the camaraderie over the 11 plus years it took me to build it. It certainly would have been nice to be part of the flying community a bit longer but I don't regret a minute of the 4,874 hours I spent building it. Jeff Carpenter N410CF ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 08, 2017
Subject: Re: A lot of advice and perhaps a little help
Hi Jeff, I'm so glad you caught it in time. I'm proud to have been a small part of your build over the years. I'd be happy to help out. I'm off work every third week, so as soon as work and weather align, I'll fly down for a couple days. Godspeed my friend. I'll be in touch. --Dave On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Jeff Carpenter wrote: > > On November 30th I was entering the company IRA deposit... 5 pairs of > numbers... something that should take me a couple of minutes at most. But, > on that day, there seemed to be a strong glare in my office and I couldn't > make out the numbers. I twisted the paper, moved it around in my field of > vision... tried just one eye, then the other. 15 minutes later the work was > done and whatever problem I was having with my vision seemed to have > resolved itself. I went and got a big glass of water thinking that I might > be dehydrated. > > The next day, I noticed a similar vision problem. It didn't last as long > and I wasn't doing work that it interfered with... but it worried me a > little. Later that afternoon I met with a customer in my office to discuss > some new projects. He's a smart guy. He'd ask a question. I'd start in to > the answer and before I could finish the sentence I could see that he was > moving on to the next question... and I was having a progressively harder > time actually finishing the sentences. Words were slightly out of order. > I'd back up to get it right and the words kept coming out a little wrong. > He didn't seem to notice. We finished our meeting and said our goodbyes. I > immediately went to my office manager to tell her that something was wrong > with me. She, with all the love and understanding of someone who has worked > for me for almost 25 years said "well, don't tell me... tell you doctor... > dork." > > So, the next morning I called my doctor on my way in to work. I pulled off > to the side of the road as the nurse was getting the doctor to the phone. I > explained to him what had happened the past couple of days. He said "I'd > like you turn around and drive straight to the ER and get an MRI. This is > the kind of stuff we don't mess with." So, that's what I did. > > By noon the MRI was complete and the results were back. I had two brain > tumors. One rather small and one the size of a lemon. Something about the > nature of the tumors indicated that they didn't start in the brain. So, a > scan or two later it was determined that I have stage 4 lung cancer (never > smoked). My GP came to the hospital and explained that this was the worst > time of the week to discover something like this. We wanted to assemble the > "A" team and the "A" team didn't work the weekends." So, I was released > from the ER into the care of my wife with a few strong prescriptions and a > few days to imagine all that might be before me. > > On Monday, as my GP was assembling his "A" team my parents were assembling > theirs. Unbeknownst to me, good friends of theirs had just endowed the > Chair of Oncology at The City of Hope. By Tuesday I was in the care of some > of the very best doctors in the world. By the following Tuesday the large > tumor was surgically removed and I was, somehow, still able to walk and > talk... but not drive and certainly not fly. > > My prognosis, now, is "up in the air" so to speak. I've finished radiation > therapy which finished off anything that might have remained of the large > tumor and zapped the small one. I'm lucky, if you can call anything about > this "lucky" to have certain biomarkers in my cancer that make it treatable > with targeted therapy... which has the potential to make this a chronically > managed disease as opposed to a death sentence. While targeted therapy > drugs are a godsend... giving me a shot at watching my kids grow up... they > are not allowed by the FAA. I'm going to have to sell my RV-10. That's > where I need your advice and, perhaps a little help. > > N410CF has the following squawks. In my current condition I am unable to > address most of them without help. That being said, what should I make sure > is taken care of before putting the plane on the market? > > The plane is not painted > > It is out of annual (would love a checklist for the annual) > > POH is incomplete > > Wheel pants and fairings are fit and finished except for the upper > intersection fairings > > The parking brake valve leaks > > The back up battery fuse has blown twice now > > The 1042G wire covers are not finish painted to match the interior > > Door locks are not installed > > AOA is not calibrated > > Needs a rudder trim tab > > An aileron trim tab wouldn't hurt > > 1 weeping rivet > > > I'd like to thank you all for the camaraderie over the 11 plus years it > took me to build it. It certainly would have been nice to be part of the > flying community a bit longer but I don't regret a minute of the 4,874 > hours I spent building it. > > Jeff Carpenter > N410CF > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: A lot of advice and perhaps a little help
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Feb 09, 2017
Sad news Jeff. Possible physical problems that go unnoticed until too late scare the crap out of me. You hang in there ..... If I were in your shoes would add up the $$ I have invested in the project as a starting point. This is the actual value of your project. Now you can start adding some $$ for 'desireability'. If there were RV-10s for sale when I started my kit, I would have seriously thought about paying the price knowing what I know now. Somewhere between your actual value and what a comparable -10 is selling (not asking) for is a good asking price. Those 4,874 enjoyable hours spent so far will be a gift to the buyer and shouldn't be a factor in coming to a asking price. Depending on your health (mental and physical) you might want to address the squawks yourself .... even up to painting a base color .... as this will add value far above actual cost of completion. Might be good therapy, I don't know. Keep us posted ..... we do care. Linn On 2/8/2017 11:43 PM, Jeff Carpenter wrote: > > On November 30th I was entering the company IRA deposit... 5 pairs of numbers... something that should take me a couple of minutes at most. But, on that day, there seemed to be a strong glare in my office and I couldn't make out the numbers. I twisted the paper, moved it around in my field of vision... tried just one eye, then the other. 15 minutes later the work was done and whatever problem I was having with my vision seemed to have resolved itself. I went and got a big glass of water thinking that I might be dehydrated. > > The next day, I noticed a similar vision problem. It didn't last as long and I wasn't doing work that it interfered with... but it worried me a little. Later that afternoon I met with a customer in my office to discuss some new projects. He's a smart guy. He'd ask a question. I'd start in to the answer and before I could finish the sentence I could see that he was moving on to the next question... and I was having a progressively harder time actually finishing the sentences. Words were slightly out of order. I'd back up to get it right and the words kept coming out a little wrong. He didn't seem to notice. We finished our meeting and said our goodbyes. I immediately went to my office manager to tell her that something was wrong with me. She, with all the love and understanding of someone who has worked for me for almost 25 years said "well, don't tell me... tell you doctor... dork." > > So, the next morning I called my doctor on my way in to work. I pulled off to the side of the road as the nurse was getting the doctor to the phone. I explained to him what had happened the past couple of days. He said "I'd like you turn around and drive straight to the ER and get an MRI. This is the kind of stuff we don't mess with." So, that's what I did. > > By noon the MRI was complete and the results were back. I had two brain tumors. One rather small and one the size of a lemon. Something about the nature of the tumors indicated that they didn't start in the brain. So, a scan or two later it was determined that I have stage 4 lung cancer (never smoked). My GP came to the hospital and explained that this was the worst time of the week to discover something like this. We wanted to assemble the "A" team and the "A" team didn't work the weekends." So, I was released from the ER into the care of my wife with a few strong prescriptions and a few days to imagine all that might be before me. > > On Monday, as my GP was assembling his "A" team my parents were assembling theirs. Unbeknownst to me, good friends of theirs had just endowed the Chair of Oncology at The City of Hope. By Tuesday I was in the care of some of the very best doctors in the world. By the following Tuesday the large tumor was surgically removed and I was, somehow, still able to walk and talk... but not drive and certainly not fly. > > My prognosis, now, is "up in the air" so to speak. I've finished radiation therapy which finished off anything that might have remained of the large tumor and zapped the small one. I'm lucky, if you can call anything about this "lucky" to have certain biomarkers in my cancer that make it treatable with targeted therapy... which has the potential to make this a chronically managed disease as opposed to a death sentence. While targeted therapy drugs are a godsend... giving me a shot at watching my kids grow up... they are not allowed by the FAA. I'm going to have to sell my RV-10. That's where I need your advice and, perhaps a little help. > > N410CF has the following squawks. In my current condition I am unable to address most of them without help. That being said, what should I make sure is taken care of before putting the plane on the market? > > The plane is not painted > > It is out of annual (would love a checklist for the annual) > > POH is incomplete > > Wheel pants and fairings are fit and finished except for the upper intersection fairings > > The parking brake valve leaks > > The back up battery fuse has blown twice now > > The 1042G wire covers are not finish painted to match the interior > > Door locks are not installed > > AOA is not calibrated > > Needs a rudder trim tab > > An aileron trim tab wouldn't hurt > > 1 weeping rivet > > > I'd like to thank you all for the camaraderie over the 11 plus years it took me to build it. It certainly would have been nice to be part of the flying community a bit longer but I don't regret a minute of the 4,874 hours I spent building it. > > Jeff Carpenter > N410CF > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Date: Feb 09, 2017
Subject: Cabin cover bottom
Guys The bottom surface of the pink fiberglass cabin cover, which will act as the cockpit ceiling, has 2 different surfaces. The one in the aft part, which will cover the back seats and the baggage compartment, is very smooth, and seems to be almost finished. The one over the front seats, around the doors hinges holes, is very very rough. How did you finish these 2 different surfaces? Regards Carlos Enviado do meu iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rick Lark" <jrlark(at)bmts.com>
Subject: Cabin cover bottom
Date: Feb 09, 2017
Carlos, lots of filler and sanding of both... #40956 C-GDMH -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: February 9, 2017 10:41 AM Subject: RV10-List: Cabin cover bottom Guys The bottom surface of the pink fiberglass cabin cover, which will act as the cockpit ceiling, has 2 different surfaces. The one in the aft part, which will cover the back seats and the baggage compartment, is very smooth, and seems to be almost finished. The one over the front seats, around the doors hinges holes, is very very rough. How did you finish these 2 different surfaces? Regards Carlos Enviado do meu iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 09, 2017
Subject: Re: Cabin cover bottom
Sand and fill. Sand and fill. Sand and fill. Sand and fill again. Sand and fill one more time. Now you're getting close. Sand and fill. Sand and fill. Oh wait, you're not as close as we thought. Sand and fill some more. And again. And again. Now you get to work on pin holes! Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 9, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > > Guys > > The bottom surface of the pink fiberglass cabin cover, which will act as t he cockpit ceiling, has 2 different surfaces. > The one in the aft part, which will cover the back seats and the baggage c ompartment, is very smooth, and seems to be almost finished. > The one over the front seats, around the doors hinges holes, is very very r ough. > > How did you finish these 2 different surfaces? > > Regards > Carlos > > > Enviado do meu iPhone > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Robert Jones <rjones560xl(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 09, 2017
Subject: Re: Cabin cover bottom
I put the carbon fiber overhead duct in but finishing would be the same. I shaded down the really high spots with a 3 inch disk sander and took the shine off everywhere. Them I mixed up some Westsystem 105 epoxy and some micro faring filler and spread it everywhere. The aft part I used a long board sander on and around the curves I just tried to get nice smooth curves with whatever soft material (like a sponge) worked. It took quite a few coats to get it smooth. I bonded the aluminum backup strips for the rivets on before I finished it so the edge of the aluminum would not show and painted it before I riveted it on the aircraft. The bag side of the cabin cover is pretty bad. I may leave it painted or cover it with some thin foam backed material like they use in modern cars. At least I have I nice smooth surface now. It was a lot easier to finish it laying upside down. Robert Jones 702-521-1840 > On Feb 9, 2017, at 09:41, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > > Guys > > The bottom surface of the pink fiberglass cabin cover, which will act as the cockpit ceiling, has 2 different surfaces. > The one in the aft part, which will cover the back seats and the baggage compartment, is very smooth, and seems to be almost finished. > The one over the front seats, around the doors hinges holes, is very very rough. > > How did you finish these 2 different surfaces? > > Regards > Carlos > > > Enviado do meu iPhone > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cabin cover bottom
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Feb 09, 2017
You can glue headliner fabric over the whole thing and not otherwise touch it. Using the right adhesive results in an easy and nice job (automotive headline adhesive recommended by Flightline). However, the edges are a challenge that I never solved. Still unhappy. Bill "never wanting to touch the top again if I can help it" Watson On 2/9/2017 10:41 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > Guys > > The bottom surface of the pink fiberglass cabin cover, which will act as the cockpit ceiling, has 2 different surfaces. > The one in the aft part, which will cover the back seats and the baggage compartment, is very smooth, and seems to be almost finished. > The one over the front seats, around the doors hinges holes, is very very rough. > > How did you finish these 2 different surfaces? > > Regards > Carlos --- 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: Cabin cover bottom
Date: Feb 09, 2017
Carlos, I used micro to fill in the rough areas on the forward side, along with a lot of sanding. The forward side got painted the same color as the rest of the interior. On the aft side I put up a 3/8" thick marine grade vinyl backed foam, and covered that with a matching interior cloth (from Cleaveland Tool). If I had to do it today, I would prep and paint the front as before, but use this high textured product on the aft side: http://www.zolatone.com/ A Lancair IV neighbor did this with his plane and it looks great. It is a fraction of the work, very light, and will last forever. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 10:41 AM Subject: RV10-List: Cabin cover bottom Guys The bottom surface of the pink fiberglass cabin cover, which will act as the cockpit ceiling, has 2 different surfaces. The one in the aft part, which will cover the back seats and the baggage compartment, is very smooth, and seems to be almost finished. The one over the front seats, around the doors hinges holes, is very very rough. How did you finish these 2 different surfaces? Regards Carlos Enviado do meu iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Cabin cover bottom
Date: Feb 09, 2017
Dammit! Why did I ask this question? I should have known that I didn't want to know the answer!... Thanks Philip I guess I have to hire some patient "Sand & Fill" dude .... 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: Thursday, February 9, 2017 4:13 PM Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Cabin cover bottom Sand and fill. Sand and fill. Sand and fill. Sand and fill again. Sand and fill one more time. Now you're getting close. Sand and fill. Sand and fill. Oh wait, you're not as close as we thought. Sand and fill some more. And again. And again. Now you get to work on pin holes! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Cabin cover bottom
Date: Feb 09, 2017
And when should that be done? Before permanently installing the cabin cover in the fuselage? And how about the door hinges installation?, can that be done after all that sand & fill work? Carlos -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Rick Lark Enviada: Thursday, February 9, 2017 4:09 PM Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: RE: RV10-List: Cabin cover bottom Carlos, lots of filler and sanding of both... #40956 C-GDMH -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: February 9, 2017 10:41 AM Subject: RV10-List: Cabin cover bottom Guys The bottom surface of the pink fiberglass cabin cover, which will act as the cockpit ceiling, has 2 different surfaces. The one in the aft part, which will cover the back seats and the baggage compartment, is very smooth, and seems to be almost finished. The one over the front seats, around the doors hinges holes, is very very rough. How did you finish these 2 different surfaces? Regards Carlos Enviado do meu iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Cabin cover bottom
Date: Feb 09, 2017
I used headliner....2 people about 1 hour. Doing the trim a little longer. I did a little prep before hand, but mostly dealing with the retractable shoulder harness pads, etc. 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 Carlos Trigo Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 11:11 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Cabin cover bottom Dammit! Why did I ask this question? I should have known that I didn't want to know the answer!... Thanks Philip I guess I have to hire some patient "Sand & Fill" dude .... 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: Thursday, February 9, 2017 4:13 PM Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Cabin cover bottom Sand and fill. Sand and fill. Sand and fill. Sand and fill again. Sand and fill one more time. Now you're getting close. Sand and fill. Sand and fill. Oh wait, you're not as close as we thought. Sand and fill some more. And again. And again. Now you get to work on pin holes! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 09, 2017
Subject: Re: Cabin cover bottom
If I had it to do again, I'd sand off the high spots. Fill the lows to match. Then glue in a foam backed headliner to cover the imperfections. Then I'd be fine with it and move on. The cabin top has been the worst part of the project for me. Even over the doors. I had planned on putting a headliner in mine, but after all the work I put into mine to make it look awesome, I decided to not cover it up. So mine is exposed now, but I'd cover it if I ever did another. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 9, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > > Dammit! > > Why did I ask this question? > I should have known that I didn't want to know the answer!... > > Thanks Philip > I guess I have to hire some patient "Sand & Fill" dude .... > > 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: Thursday, February 9, 2017 4:13 PM > Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Cabin cover bottom > > Sand and fill. > Sand and fill. > Sand and fill. > Sand and fill again. > Sand and fill one more time. > > Now you're getting close. > > Sand and fill. > Sand and fill. > > Oh wait, you're not as close as we thought. > > Sand and fill some more. > And again. > And again. > > Now you get to work on pin holes! > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 09, 2017
Subject: Re: Cabin cover bottom
I was lucky in that I was based next to an aircraft interior shop. We used a combination of textured truck bed liner paint and automotive type headliner. I let the paint show in areas that are hard to cover with cloth, like around the windows. The upper door areas are painted to conserve headroom. This kit comes with the spray gun. I had it tinted at my local paint supplier. Worked great and easy to apply: http://tinyurl.com/j7bclgy Here's an example of the finished paint surface and the headliner. [image: Inline image 1] Also, the areas that tend to be touched a lot are painted so they're easy to clean. --Dave On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > Guys > > The bottom surface of the pink fiberglass cabin cover, which will act as > the cockpit ceiling, has 2 different surfaces. > The one in the aft part, which will cover the back seats and the baggage > compartment, is very smooth, and seems to be almost finished. > The one over the front seats, around the doors hinges holes, is very very > rough. > > How did you finish these 2 different surfaces? > > Regards > Carlos > > > Enviado do meu iPhone > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: P Reid <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Cabin cover bottom
Date: Feb 09, 2017
I sprayed sound insulation and ceramic "truckliner" on my cabin top, has a orangepeel look to it and I love it! No idea if its any quieter and temperature difference than without it, but it sure was easy to complete- never really sanded anything I BTW sprayed the same mixture on my firewall- and it does block noise and heat, but I put more on both sides on FW than I did on cabin area. In all cases the area remains solid with no peeling whatsoever. I used Lizardskin sound and ceramic gallons, but I think there are less expensive options that would accomplish the same goal of covering over an area quickly. As a note the ceramic can be sanded smooth, the sound insulator is more a rubbery non sandable area. Additionally throwing micro balloons into the ceramic makes it even easier to smooth out. Pascal -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillip Perry Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 10:26 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Cabin cover bottom If I had it to do again, I'd sand off the high spots. Fill the lows to match. Then glue in a foam backed headliner to cover the imperfections. Then I'd be fine with it and move on. The cabin top has been the worst part of the project for me. Even over the doors. I had planned on putting a headliner in mine, but after all the work I put into mine to make it look awesome, I decided to not cover it up. So mine is exposed now, but I'd cover it if I ever did another. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 9, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > --> > > Dammit! > > Why did I ask this question? > I should have known that I didn't want to know the answer!... > > Thanks Philip > I guess I have to hire some patient "Sand & Fill" dude .... > > 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: Thursday, February 9, 2017 4:13 PM > Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Assunto: Re: RV10-List: Cabin cover bottom > > Sand and fill. > Sand and fill. > Sand and fill. > Sand and fill again. > Sand and fill one more time. > > Now you're getting close. > > Sand and fill. > Sand and fill. > > Oh wait, you're not as close as we thought. > > Sand and fill some more. > And again. > And again. > > Now you get to work on pin holes! > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cabin cover bottom
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Feb 09, 2017
I used Zolatone on the inside of the cabin on mine. Darker on the lower half ..... height of door sill, and a lighter color from there up. I sprayed it with my HF gun. Linn On 2/9/2017 11:49 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote: > > Carlos, > > I used micro to fill in the rough areas on the forward side, along with a > lot of sanding. The forward side got painted the same color as the rest of > the interior. On the aft side I put up a 3/8" thick marine grade vinyl > backed foam, and covered that with a matching interior cloth (from > Cleaveland Tool). If I had to do it today, I would prep and paint the front > as before, but use this high textured product on the aft side: > http://www.zolatone.com/ > > A Lancair IV neighbor did this with his plane and it looks great. It is a > fraction of the work, very light, and will last forever. > > Carl > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 10:41 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: Cabin cover bottom > > > Guys > > The bottom surface of the pink fiberglass cabin cover, which will act as the > cockpit ceiling, has 2 different surfaces. > The one in the aft part, which will cover the back seats and the baggage > compartment, is very smooth, and seems to be almost finished. > The one over the front seats, around the doors hinges holes, is very very > rough. > > How did you finish these 2 different surfaces? > > Regards > Carlos > > > Enviado do meu iPhone > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rick Lark" <jrlark(at)bmts.com>
Subject: Cabin cover bottom
Date: Feb 09, 2017
Carlos as others have indicated, it all depends on how you finish the interior. Like Phil, I also painted my cabin top, with high gloss urethane no less, so it took a lot of work (I also made my own overhead console so it all worked out together). I would do almost all of the work before installing the top. Same thing with the door hinges. I figured out what position the cabin top would be in when installed, and did about 80% of my door fitting on a work bench, then finished it up on the fuse. Take your time and think it all through. If you can get this far in the build, the remainder will come as well, just takes time. Rick -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: February 9, 2017 1:15 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Cabin cover bottom And when should that be done? Before permanently installing the cabin cover in the fuselage? And how about the door hinges installation?, can that be done after all that sand & fill work? Carlos -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de Rick Lark Enviada: Thursday, February 9, 2017 4:09 PM Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: RE: RV10-List: Cabin cover bottom Carlos, lots of filler and sanding of both... #40956 C-GDMH -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: February 9, 2017 10:41 AM Subject: RV10-List: Cabin cover bottom Guys The bottom surface of the pink fiberglass cabin cover, which will act as the cockpit ceiling, has 2 different surfaces. The one in the aft part, which will cover the back seats and the baggage compartment, is very smooth, and seems to be almost finished. The one over the front seats, around the doors hinges holes, is very very rough. How did you finish these 2 different surfaces? Regards Carlos Enviado do meu iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: A lot of advice and perhaps a little help
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com>
Date: Feb 09, 2017
Thank you so much Pascal... it means a lot to me... I'll keep you posted. On Feb 8, 2017, at 9:15 PM, P Reid wrote: > > Jeff; > Really glad it was found and steps are being taken. > I can help with some of these items. Maybe I should fly out and see if we can get that list minimized. The parking brake leak I think was resolved by Matco in one of there kits, if so we should be able to fix that, the Annual and POH is easily available and we can make the proper "specific" updates to reflect your plane. > Get well and when you're ready we'll take care of the squawk list. Piece of cake! > Pascal > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 8:44 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: A lot of advice and perhaps a little help > > > On November 30th I was entering the company IRA deposit... 5 pairs of numbers... something that should take me a couple of minutes at most. But, on that day, there seemed to be a strong glare in my office and I couldn't make out the numbers. I twisted the paper, moved it around in my field of vision... tried just one eye, then the other. 15 minutes later the work was done and whatever problem I was having with my vision seemed to have resolved itself. I went and got a big glass of water thinking that I might be dehydrated. > > The next day, I noticed a similar vision problem. It didn't last as long and I wasn't doing work that it interfered with... but it worried me a little. Later that afternoon I met with a customer in my office to discuss some new projects. He's a smart guy. He'd ask a question. I'd start in to the answer and before I could finish the sentence I could see that he was moving on to the next question... and I was having a progressively harder time actually finishing the sentences. Words were slightly out of order. I'd back up to get it right and the words kept coming out a little wrong. He didn't seem to notice. We finished our meeting and said our goodbyes. I immediately went to my office manager to tell her that something was wrong with me. She, with all the love and understanding of someone who has worked for me for almost 25 years said "well, don't tell me... tell you doctor... dork." > > So, the next morning I called my doctor on my way in to work. I pulled off to the side of the road as the nurse was getting the doctor to the phone. I explained to him what had happened the past couple of days. He said "I'd like you turn around and drive straight to the ER and get an MRI. This is the kind of stuff we don't mess with." So, that's what I did. > > By noon the MRI was complete and the results were back. I had two brain tumors. One rather small and one the size of a lemon. Something about the nature of the tumors indicated that they didn't start in the brain. So, a scan or two later it was determined that I have stage 4 lung cancer (never smoked). My GP came to the hospital and explained that this was the worst time of the week to discover something like this. We wanted to assemble the "A" team and the "A" team didn't work the weekends." So, I was released from the ER into the care of my wife with a few strong prescriptions and a few days to imagine all that might be before me. > > On Monday, as my GP was assembling his "A" team my parents were assembling theirs. Unbeknownst to me, good friends of theirs had just endowed the Chair of Oncology at The City of Hope. By Tuesday I was in the care of some of the very best doctors in the world. By the following Tuesday the large tumor was surgically removed and I was, somehow, still able to walk and talk... but not drive and certainly not fly. > > My prognosis, now, is "up in the air" so to speak. I've finished radiation therapy which finished off anything that might have remained of the large tumor and zapped the small one. I'm lucky, if you can call anything about this "lucky" to have certain biomarkers in my cancer that make it treatable with targeted therapy... which has the potential to make this a chronically managed disease as opposed to a death sentence. While targeted therapy drugs are a godsend... giving me a shot at watching my kids grow up... they are not allowed by the FAA. I'm going to have to sell my RV-10. That's where I need your advice and, perhaps a little help. > > N410CF has the following squawks. In my current condition I am unable to address most of them without help. That being said, what should I make sure is taken care of before putting the plane on the market? > > The plane is not painted > > It is out of annual (would love a checklist for the annual) > > POH is incomplete > > Wheel pants and fairings are fit and finished except for the upper intersection fairings > > The parking brake valve leaks > > The back up battery fuse has blown twice now > > The 1042G wire covers are not finish painted to match the interior > > Door locks are not installed > > AOA is not calibrated > > Needs a rudder trim tab > > An aileron trim tab wouldn't hurt > > 1 weeping rivet > > > I'd like to thank you all for the camaraderie over the 11 plus years it took me to build it. It certainly would have been nice to be part of the flying community a bit longer but I don't regret a minute of the 4,874 hours I spent building it. > > Jeff Carpenter > N410CF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Feb 10, 2017
Subject: Re: A lot of advice and perhaps a little help
Jeff My thoughts and prayers are with you my friend. God bless. Warm regards Patrick > On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:32, Linn Walters wrote: > > > Sad news Jeff. Possible physical problems that go unnoticed until too late scare the crap out of me. You hang in there ..... > > If I were in your shoes would add up the $$ I have invested in the project as a starting point. This is the actual value of your project. Now you can start adding some $$ for 'desireability'. If there were RV-10s for sale when I started my kit, I would have seriously thought about paying the price knowing what I know now. Somewhere between your actual value and what a comparable -10 is selling (not asking) for is a good asking price. Those 4,874 enjoyable hours spent so far will be a gift to the buyer and shouldn't be a factor in coming to a asking price. > Depending on your health (mental and physical) you might want to address the squawks yourself .... even up to painting a base color .... as this will add value far above actual cost of completion. Might be good therapy, I don't know. > Keep us posted ..... we do care. > Linn > > >> On 2/8/2017 11:43 PM, Jeff Carpenter wrote: >> >> On November 30th I was entering the company IRA deposit... 5 pairs of numbers... something that should take me a couple of minutes at most. But, on that day, there seemed to be a strong glare in my office and I couldn't make out the numbers. I twisted the paper, moved it around in my field of vision... tried just one eye, then the other. 15 minutes later the work was done and whatever problem I was having with my vision seemed to have resolved itself. I went and got a big glass of water thinking that I might be dehydrated. >> >> The next day, I noticed a similar vision problem. It didn't last as long and I wasn't doing work that it interfered with... but it worried me a little. Later that afternoon I met with a customer in my office to discuss some new projects. He's a smart guy. He'd ask a question. I'd start in to the answer and before I could finish the sentence I could see that he was moving on to the next question... and I was having a progressively harder time actually finishing the sentences. Words were slightly out of order. I'd back up to get it right and the words kept coming out a little wrong. He didn't seem to notice. We finished our meeting and said our goodbyes. I immediately went to my office manager to tell her that something was wrong with me. She, with all the love and understanding of someone who has worked for me for almost 25 years said "well, don't tell me... tell you doctor... dork." >> >> So, the next morning I called my doctor on my way in to work. I pulled off to the side of the road as the nurse was getting the doctor to the phone. I explained to him what had happened the past couple of days. He said "I'd like you turn around and drive straight to the ER and get an MRI. This is the kind of stuff we don't mess with." So, that's what I did. >> >> By noon the MRI was complete and the results were back. I had two brain tumors. One rather small and one the size of a lemon. Something about the nature of the tumors indicated that they didn't start in the brain. So, a scan or two later it was determined that I have stage 4 lung cancer (never smoked). My GP came to the hospital and explained that this was the worst time of the week to discover something like this. We wanted to assemble the "A" team and the "A" team didn't work the weekends." So, I was released from the ER into the care of my wife with a few strong prescriptions and a few days to imagine all that might be before me. >> >> On Monday, as my GP was assembling his "A" team my parents were assembling theirs. Unbeknownst to me, good friends of theirs had just endowed the Chair of Oncology at The City of Hope. By Tuesday I was in the care of some of the very best doctors in the world. By the following Tuesday the large tumor was surgically removed and I was, somehow, still able to walk and talk... but not drive and certainly not fly. >> >> My prognosis, now, is "up in the air" so to speak. I've finished radiation therapy which finished off anything that might have remained of the large tumor and zapped the small one. I'm lucky, if you can call anything about this "lucky" to have certain biomarkers in my cancer that make it treatable with targeted therapy... which has the potential to make this a chronically managed disease as opposed to a death sentence. While targeted therapy drugs are a godsend... giving me a shot at watching my kids grow up... they are not allowed by the FAA. I'm going to have to sell my RV-10. That's where I need your advice and, perhaps a little help. >> >> N410CF has the following squawks. In my current condition I am unable to address most of them without help. That being said, what should I make sure is taken care of before putting the plane on the market? >> >> The plane is not painted >> >> It is out of annual (would love a checklist for the annual) >> >> POH is incomplete >> >> Wheel pants and fairings are fit and finished except for the upper intersection fairings >> >> The parking brake valve leaks >> >> The back up battery fuse has blown twice now >> >> The 1042G wire covers are not finish painted to match the interior >> >> Door locks are not installed >> >> AOA is not calibrated >> >> Needs a rudder trim tab >> >> An aileron trim tab wouldn't hurt >> >> 1 weeping rivet >> >> >> I'd like to thank you all for the camaraderie over the 11 plus years it took me to build it. It certainly would have been nice to be part of the flying community a bit longer but I don't regret a minute of the 4,874 hours I spent building it. >> >> Jeff Carpenter >> N410CF >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rv10 Fuselage Dolly
From: Terry Moushon <tmoushon(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 10, 2017
10 Builders... My 10 took flight 5/2/16 and have 86 hours to date. All going well. My 10 was slow build and I am ready to part with the dolly I built for fuselage construction. I am located in Peoria, Illinois...and would honored to give it to another 10 builder. It is sturdy and has heavy duty caster wheels attached. As this topic offer no value to built units, please PM me so we don't clutter up the site. Terry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 10, 2017
Subject: Georgia: 5 Person RV-10 Probable Cause
Some of you probably saw the Probable Cause report <http://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID 150916X80028&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=FA> that was recently published by the NTSB on the 5-Person, middle of the night, without a certificated pilot, RV-10 crash that occurred in Georgia. The PC report was pretty much what we all expected. The photo of the airframe showed the massive impact and airframe destruction that was reported by the law enforcement on the ground. This is the first time I've seen a photo of it as I don't believe the media was allowed back there. Anyway, I dug into the docket a bit more and found an interesting study that I hadn't seen performed inside other NTSB reports; a Personal Electronic Devices Report . The level of damage to the phones in this report is quite revealing. However I found it interesting that the NTSB is now utilizing cell phone data. We've always known it was possible, but I hadn't seen them do it yet in an investigation. That could potentially open up a can of worms. Perhaps PED's in the off position aren't a bad thing. Just thought it was interesting to see. Full Docket is here .... Phil ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: Georgia: 5 Person RV-10 Probable Cause
Date: Feb 11, 2017
RG8gdG8gdGhlIENHIGJlaW5nIHNvIGdyb3NzbHkgdGFpbHdhcmQsIGlzIGl0IHBvc3NpYmxlIHRo YXQgd2FzIGNhdXNpbmcgYWxsIHRoZSB3aGlmZmVyZGlsbHM/ICBTZXJpb3VzbHkgTk9UIGJlaW5n IGFibGUgdG8gY29udHJvbCB0aGUgcGxhbmUgZHVlIHRvIHRoZSBhZnQgQ0c/IEp1c3Qgd29uZGVy aW5nIQ0KDQpTZW50IGZyb20gbXkgaVBob25lDQoNCk9uIEZlYiAxMCwgMjAxNywgYXQgOToxOCBQ TSwgUGhpbGxpcCBQZXJyeSA8cGhpbHBlcnJ5OUBnbWFpbC5jb208bWFpbHRvOnBoaWxwZXJyeTlA Z21haWwuY29tPj4gd3JvdGU6DQoNClNvbWUgb2YgeW91IHByb2JhYmx5IHNhdyB0aGUgUHJvYmFi bGUgQ2F1c2UgcmVwb3J0PGh0dHA6Ly9hcHAubnRzYi5nb3YvcGRmZ2VuZXJhdG9yL1JlcG9ydEdl bmVyYXRvckZpbGUuYXNoeD9FdmVudElEPTIwMTUwOTE2WDgwMDI4JkFLZXk9MSZSVHlwZT1GaW5h bCZJVHlwZT1GQT4gdGhhdCB3YXMgcmVjZW50bHkgcHVibGlzaGVkIGJ5IHRoZSBOVFNCIG9uIHRo ZSA1LVBlcnNvbiwgbWlkZGxlIG9mIHRoZSBuaWdodCwgd2l0aG91dCBhIGNlcnRpZmljYXRlZCBw aWxvdCwgUlYtMTAgY3Jhc2ggdGhhdCBvY2N1cnJlZCBpbiBHZW9yZ2lhLg0KDQpUaGUgUEMgcmVw b3J0IHdhcyBwcmV0dHkgbXVjaCB3aGF0IHdlIGFsbCBleHBlY3RlZC4gIFRoZSBwaG90byBvZiB0 aGUgYWlyZnJhbWU8aHR0cHM6Ly9kbXMubnRzYi5nb3YvcHVibGljLzU5MDAwLTU5NDk5LzU5NDQ1 LzU5OTExOS5wZGY+IHNob3dlZCB0aGUgbWFzc2l2ZSBpbXBhY3QgYW5kIGFpcmZyYW1lIGRlc3Ry dWN0aW9uIHRoYXQgd2FzIHJlcG9ydGVkIGJ5IHRoZSBsYXcgZW5mb3JjZW1lbnQgb24gdGhlIGdy b3VuZC4gIFRoaXMgaXMgdGhlIGZpcnN0IHRpbWUgSSd2ZSBzZWVuIGEgcGhvdG8gb2YgaXQgYXMg SSBkb24ndCBiZWxpZXZlIHRoZSBtZWRpYSB3YXMgYWxsb3dlZCBiYWNrIHRoZXJlLg0KDQpBbnl3 YXksIEkgZHVnIGludG8gdGhlIGRvY2tldCBhIGJpdCBtb3JlIGFuZCBmb3VuZCBhbiBpbnRlcmVz dGluZyBzdHVkeSB0aGF0IEkgaGFkbid0IHNlZW4gcGVyZm9ybWVkIGluc2lkZSBvdGhlciBOVFNC IHJlcG9ydHM7IGEgUGVyc29uYWwgRWxlY3Ryb25pYyBEZXZpY2VzIFJlcG9ydDxodHRwczovL2Rt cy5udHNiLmdvdi9wdWJsaWMvNTkwMDAtNTk0OTkvNTk0NDUvNTk5MTE3LnBkZj4uICBUaGUgbGV2 ZWwgb2YgZGFtYWdlIHRvIHRoZSBwaG9uZXMgaW4gdGhpcyByZXBvcnQgaXMgcXVpdGUgcmV2ZWFs aW5nLiAgSG93ZXZlciBJIGZvdW5kIGl0IGludGVyZXN0aW5nIHRoYXQgdGhlIE5UU0IgaXMgbm93 IHV0aWxpemluZyBjZWxsIHBob25lIGRhdGEuICBXZSd2ZSBhbHdheXMga25vd24gaXQgd2FzIHBv c3NpYmxlLCBidXQgSSBoYWRuJ3Qgc2VlbiB0aGVtIGRvIGl0IHlldCBpbiBhbiBpbnZlc3RpZ2F0 aW9uLiAgVGhhdCBjb3VsZCBwb3RlbnRpYWxseSBvcGVuIHVwIGEgY2FuIG9mIHdvcm1zLiAgUGVy aGFwcyBQRUQncyBpbiB0aGUgb2ZmIHBvc2l0aW9uIGFyZW4ndCBhIGJhZCB0aGluZy4NCg0KSnVz dCB0aG91Z2h0IGl0IHdhcyBpbnRlcmVzdGluZyB0byBzZWUuDQoNCkZ1bGwgRG9ja2V0IGlzIGhl cmU8aHR0cHM6Ly9kbXMubnRzYi5nb3YvcHViZG1zL3NlYXJjaC9oaXRsaXN0LmNmbT9kb2NrZXRJ RD01OTQ0NSZDRklEPTk0NzQzOCZDRlRPS0VOPWI5NTcwNWIxOTJiNmNlODgtNzlFNzQzRDUtMEND Mi05MUZGLUNDMzMzNkJEN0M3OUI1Q0U+Li4uLg0KDQpQaGlsDQoNCg= ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: Georgia: 5 Person RV-10 Probable Cause
Date: Feb 11, 2017
VGhlIGludGVyZXN0aW5nIHBhcnQgdG8gbWUgd2FzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGNyYXNoIHdhcyBzbyB2aW9s ZW50IHRoYXQgaXQgcmlwcGVkIGFsbCB0aGUgYWNjZXNzb3JpZXMgb2ZmIHRoZSBlbmdpbmUuIFlv dSBrbm93IHRoZSBtYWdzLCBhbHRlcm5hdG9yLCBldGMuIFRIQVQnUyBhIGJhZCBjcmFzaCENCktp bmQgb2YgbGlrZSBhIG1vdG9yY3ljbGUgY3Jhc2ggd2hlcmUgdGhlIHJpZGVyIGxvc2VzIGhpcyBi b290cy4gWW91IGtub3cgaXQncyBnb25uYSBiZSBiYWQhDQoNClNlbnQgZnJvbSBteSBpUGhvbmUN Cg0KT24gRmViIDEwLCAyMDE3LCBhdCA5OjE4IFBNLCBQaGlsbGlwIFBlcnJ5IDxwaGlscGVycnk5 QGdtYWlsLmNvbTxtYWlsdG86cGhpbHBlcnJ5OUBnbWFpbC5jb20+PiB3cm90ZToNCg0KU29tZSBv ZiB5b3UgcHJvYmFibHkgc2F3IHRoZSBQcm9iYWJsZSBDYXVzZSByZXBvcnQ8aHR0cDovL2FwcC5u dHNiLmdvdi9wZGZnZW5lcmF0b3IvUmVwb3J0R2VuZXJhdG9yRmlsZS5hc2h4P0V2ZW50SUQ9MjAx NTA5MTZYODAwMjgmQUtleT0xJlJUeXBlPUZpbmFsJklUeXBlPUZBPiB0aGF0IHdhcyByZWNlbnRs eSBwdWJsaXNoZWQgYnkgdGhlIE5UU0Igb24gdGhlIDUtUGVyc29uLCBtaWRkbGUgb2YgdGhlIG5p Z2h0LCB3aXRob3V0IGEgY2VydGlmaWNhdGVkIHBpbG90LCBSVi0xMCBjcmFzaCB0aGF0IG9jY3Vy cmVkIGluIEdlb3JnaWEuDQoNClRoZSBQQyByZXBvcnQgd2FzIHByZXR0eSBtdWNoIHdoYXQgd2Ug YWxsIGV4cGVjdGVkLiAgVGhlIHBob3RvIG9mIHRoZSBhaXJmcmFtZTxodHRwczovL2Rtcy5udHNi Lmdvdi9wdWJsaWMvNTkwMDAtNTk0OTkvNTk0NDUvNTk5MTE5LnBkZj4gc2hvd2VkIHRoZSBtYXNz aXZlIGltcGFjdCBhbmQgYWlyZnJhbWUgZGVzdHJ1Y3Rpb24gdGhhdCB3YXMgcmVwb3J0ZWQgYnkg dGhlIGxhdyBlbmZvcmNlbWVudCBvbiB0aGUgZ3JvdW5kLiAgVGhpcyBpcyB0aGUgZmlyc3QgdGlt ZSBJJ3ZlIHNlZW4gYSBwaG90byBvZiBpdCBhcyBJIGRvbid0IGJlbGlldmUgdGhlIG1lZGlhIHdh cyBhbGxvd2VkIGJhY2sgdGhlcmUuDQoNCkFueXdheSwgSSBkdWcgaW50byB0aGUgZG9ja2V0IGEg Yml0IG1vcmUgYW5kIGZvdW5kIGFuIGludGVyZXN0aW5nIHN0dWR5IHRoYXQgSSBoYWRuJ3Qgc2Vl biBwZXJmb3JtZWQgaW5zaWRlIG90aGVyIE5UU0IgcmVwb3J0czsgYSBQZXJzb25hbCBFbGVjdHJv bmljIERldmljZXMgUmVwb3J0PGh0dHBzOi8vZG1zLm50c2IuZ292L3B1YmxpYy81OTAwMC01OTQ5 OS81OTQ0NS81OTkxMTcucGRmPi4gIFRoZSBsZXZlbCBvZiBkYW1hZ2UgdG8gdGhlIHBob25lcyBp biB0aGlzIHJlcG9ydCBpcyBxdWl0ZSByZXZlYWxpbmcuICBIb3dldmVyIEkgZm91bmQgaXQgaW50 ZXJlc3RpbmcgdGhhdCB0aGUgTlRTQiBpcyBub3cgdXRpbGl6aW5nIGNlbGwgcGhvbmUgZGF0YS4g IFdlJ3ZlIGFsd2F5cyBrbm93biBpdCB3YXMgcG9zc2libGUsIGJ1dCBJIGhhZG4ndCBzZWVuIHRo ZW0gZG8gaXQgeWV0IGluIGFuIGludmVzdGlnYXRpb24uICBUaGF0IGNvdWxkIHBvdGVudGlhbGx5 IG9wZW4gdXAgYSBjYW4gb2Ygd29ybXMuICBQZXJoYXBzIFBFRCdzIGluIHRoZSBvZmYgcG9zaXRp b24gYXJlbid0IGEgYmFkIHRoaW5nLg0KDQpKdXN0IHRob3VnaHQgaXQgd2FzIGludGVyZXN0aW5n IHRvIHNlZS4NCg0KRnVsbCBEb2NrZXQgaXMgaGVyZTxodHRwczovL2Rtcy5udHNiLmdvdi9wdWJk bXMvc2VhcmNoL2hpdGxpc3QuY2ZtP2RvY2tldElEPTU5NDQ1JkNGSUQ9OTQ3NDM4JkNGVE9LRU49 Yjk1NzA1YjE5MmI2Y2U4OC03OUU3NDNENS0wQ0MyLTkxRkYtQ0MzMzM2QkQ3Qzc5QjVDRT4uLi4u DQoNClBoaWwNCg0K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: P Reid <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Re: Georgia: 5 Person RV-10 Probable Cause
Date: Feb 11, 2017
Tm90IGNlcnRhaW4gYnV0IGFwcGVhcnMgaGUgd2FzIHB1bGxpbmcgbmVnYXRpdmUgR3MgaGVuY2Ug dGhlIGFsdGl0dWRlIGNoYW5nZXMsIGFmdCBDRyBwcm9iYWJseSBjYXVzZWQgc3RhbGwgYW5kIHBs dW5nZS4NCg0KDQpPbiBGZWIgMTAsIDIwMTcsIGF0IDg6MTAgUE0sIERhbm55IFJpZ2dzIDxqZHJp Z2dzNDlAbXNuLmNvbTxtYWlsdG86amRyaWdnczQ5QG1zbi5jb20+PiB3cm90ZToNCg0KRG8gdG8g dGhlIENHIGJlaW5nIHNvIGdyb3NzbHkgdGFpbHdhcmQsIGlzIGl0IHBvc3NpYmxlIHRoYXQgd2Fz IGNhdXNpbmcgYWxsIHRoZSB3aGlmZmVyZGlsbHM/ICBTZXJpb3VzbHkgTk9UIGJlaW5nIGFibGUg dG8gY29udHJvbCB0aGUgcGxhbmUgZHVlIHRvIHRoZSBhZnQgQ0c/IEp1c3Qgd29uZGVyaW5nIQ0K DQpTZW50IGZyb20gbXkgaVBob25lDQoNCk9uIEZlYiAxMCwgMjAxNywgYXQgOToxOCBQTSwgUGhp bGxpcCBQZXJyeSA8cGhpbHBlcnJ5OUBnbWFpbC5jb208bWFpbHRvOnBoaWxwZXJyeTlAZ21haWwu Y29tPj4gd3JvdGU6DQoNClNvbWUgb2YgeW91IHByb2JhYmx5IHNhdyB0aGUgUHJvYmFibGUgQ2F1 c2UgcmVwb3J0PGh0dHA6Ly9hcHAubnRzYi5nb3YvcGRmZ2VuZXJhdG9yL1JlcG9ydEdlbmVyYXRv ckZpbGUuYXNoeD9FdmVudElEPTIwMTUwOTE2WDgwMDI4JkFLZXk9MSZSVHlwZT1GaW5hbCZJVHlw ZT1GQT4gdGhhdCB3YXMgcmVjZW50bHkgcHVibGlzaGVkIGJ5IHRoZSBOVFNCIG9uIHRoZSA1LVBl cnNvbiwgbWlkZGxlIG9mIHRoZSBuaWdodCwgd2l0aG91dCBhIGNlcnRpZmljYXRlZCBwaWxvdCwg UlYtMTAgY3Jhc2ggdGhhdCBvY2N1cnJlZCBpbiBHZW9yZ2lhLg0KDQpUaGUgUEMgcmVwb3J0IHdh cyBwcmV0dHkgbXVjaCB3aGF0IHdlIGFsbCBleHBlY3RlZC4gIFRoZSBwaG90byBvZiB0aGUgYWly ZnJhbWU8aHR0cHM6Ly9kbXMubnRzYi5nb3YvcHVibGljLzU5MDAwLTU5NDk5LzU5NDQ1LzU5OTEx OS5wZGY+IHNob3dlZCB0aGUgbWFzc2l2ZSBpbXBhY3QgYW5kIGFpcmZyYW1lIGRlc3RydWN0aW9u IHRoYXQgd2FzIHJlcG9ydGVkIGJ5IHRoZSBsYXcgZW5mb3JjZW1lbnQgb24gdGhlIGdyb3VuZC4g IFRoaXMgaXMgdGhlIGZpcnN0IHRpbWUgSSd2ZSBzZWVuIGEgcGhvdG8gb2YgaXQgYXMgSSBkb24n dCBiZWxpZXZlIHRoZSBtZWRpYSB3YXMgYWxsb3dlZCBiYWNrIHRoZXJlLg0KDQpBbnl3YXksIEkg ZHVnIGludG8gdGhlIGRvY2tldCBhIGJpdCBtb3JlIGFuZCBmb3VuZCBhbiBpbnRlcmVzdGluZyBz dHVkeSB0aGF0IEkgaGFkbid0IHNlZW4gcGVyZm9ybWVkIGluc2lkZSBvdGhlciBOVFNCIHJlcG9y dHM7IGEgUGVyc29uYWwgRWxlY3Ryb25pYyBEZXZpY2VzIFJlcG9ydDxodHRwczovL2Rtcy5udHNi Lmdvdi9wdWJsaWMvNTkwMDAtNTk0OTkvNTk0NDUvNTk5MTE3LnBkZj4uICBUaGUgbGV2ZWwgb2Yg ZGFtYWdlIHRvIHRoZSBwaG9uZXMgaW4gdGhpcyByZXBvcnQgaXMgcXVpdGUgcmV2ZWFsaW5nLiAg SG93ZXZlciBJIGZvdW5kIGl0IGludGVyZXN0aW5nIHRoYXQgdGhlIE5UU0IgaXMgbm93IHV0aWxp emluZyBjZWxsIHBob25lIGRhdGEuICBXZSd2ZSBhbHdheXMga25vd24gaXQgd2FzIHBvc3NpYmxl LCBidXQgSSBoYWRuJ3Qgc2VlbiB0aGVtIGRvIGl0IHlldCBpbiBhbiBpbnZlc3RpZ2F0aW9uLiAg VGhhdCBjb3VsZCBwb3RlbnRpYWxseSBvcGVuIHVwIGEgY2FuIG9mIHdvcm1zLiAgUGVyaGFwcyBQ RUQncyBpbiB0aGUgb2ZmIHBvc2l0aW9uIGFyZW4ndCBhIGJhZCB0aGluZy4NCg0KSnVzdCB0aG91 Z2h0IGl0IHdhcyBpbnRlcmVzdGluZyB0byBzZWUuDQoNCkZ1bGwgRG9ja2V0IGlzIGhlcmU8aHR0 cHM6Ly9kbXMubnRzYi5nb3YvcHViZG1zL3NlYXJjaC9oaXRsaXN0LmNmbT9kb2NrZXRJRD01OTQ0 NSZDRklEPTk0NzQzOCZDRlRPS0VOPWI5NTcwNWIxOTJiNmNlODgtNzlFNzQzRDUtMENDMi05MUZG LUNDMzMzNkJEN0M3OUI1Q0U+Li4uLg0KDQpQaGlsDQoNCg= ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 11, 2017
Subject: Re: Georgia: 5 Person RV-10 Probable Cause
Once we're all brought to heel with ADS-B out, it's unlikely that PFD data will offer the feds anything further of significance with which to hang one out to dry. Isn't that pretty much the way it is? I, too, was shocked at the mutilation of the phones caused by this straight-in, smoking-hole impact. Then I read where the toxicology report was essentially blank. It's a bad wreck when there isn't enough of you left, absent a post-impact fire, to send for a tox screen. On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 12:53 AM, P Reid wrote: > Not certain but appears he was pulling negative Gs hence the altitude > changes, aft CG probably caused stall and plunge. > > > On Feb 10, 2017, at 8:10 PM, Danny Riggs wrote: > > Do to the CG being so grossly tailward, is it possible that was causing > all the whifferdills? Seriously NOT being able to control the plane due to > the aft CG? Just wondering! > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 10, 2017, at 9:18 PM, Phillip Perry wrote: > > Some of you probably saw the Probable Cause report > <http://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID 150916X80028&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=FA> > that was recently published by the NTSB on the 5-Person, middle of the > night, without a certificated pilot, RV-10 crash that occurred in Georgia. > > The PC report was pretty much what we all expected. The photo of the > airframe showed > the massive impact and airframe destruction that was reported by the law > enforcement on the ground. This is the first time I've seen a photo of it > as I don't believe the media was allowed back there. > > Anyway, I dug into the docket a bit more and found an interesting study > that I hadn't seen performed inside other NTSB reports; a Personal > Electronic Devices Report > . The level of > damage to the phones in this report is quite revealing. However I found it > interesting that the NTSB is now utilizing cell phone data. We've always > known it was possible, but I hadn't seen them do it yet in an > investigation. That could potentially open up a can of worms. Perhaps > PED's in the off position aren't a bad thing. > > Just thought it was interesting to see. > > Full Docket is here > > .... > > Phil > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: QB Wing Question
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Feb 11, 2017
Hi I am slowing inching towards getting another -10 kit so that I don't have any more free time on my hands or a life for that matter. As it turns out the QB wings I purchased a few years back have had a number of weeping rivets that are quite a pain. As I am unsure as to whether or not I want to build my wings. I thought it prudent to ask if the QB wing quality has improved over the past few years. I am certainly not impressed with how my tanks were sealed! Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466022#466022 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: W1002 Weldment Query
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Feb 11, 2017
When I built my -10, I had a very difficult time getting reasonable edge distances on the W1002 weldment when match drilled to the F1001B & F1004. For those haven't memorized the VANS plans & part numbers, these are the weldments that tie the engine mount to to the firewall / fuse. Has anyone else had a problem with these? Inquiring minds need to know... Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466023#466023 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: QB Wing Question
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Feb 11, 2017
I suspect it's hit and miss, e.g., there used to be a worse-than average record for cars built on a Monday (presumably the workers were all hung over). My QB kit picked up March 2008, so far no leaks. I did nothing special. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466030#466030 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: W1002 Weldment Query
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Feb 11, 2017
If it's the engine mount you're talking about, yes, mine were way off. After consulting with Vans I pushed and pulled on the mount, by hand, as hard as I could, and then tied it with rope to hold that configuration. That allowed the very undersized pilot holes to be within, but no where near centered, when viewed thru the mount holes. I used the mount as a guide for the drill bit, and got clean, round holes when done. But not centered on the original pilot holes. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466031#466031 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: QB Wing Question
Date: Feb 12, 2017
I never had any weeping rivets but one of my seams wasn't sealed properly and I had to cut open the tank after it was installed to fix. I did repair a QB RV-10 fuselage where there was an area of about 15" by 48" that over lapped. They hadn't even removed the plastic coating sheet where it overlapped. That said, on my RV-10 they did a nice job on the riveting. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 11, 2017, at 4:59 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > I suspect it's hit and miss, e.g., there used to be a worse-than average record for cars built on a Monday (presumably the workers were all hung over). > My QB kit picked up March 2008, so far no leaks. I did nothing special. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466030#466030 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: QB Wing Question
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Feb 11, 2017
My QB-Wings of circa Oct 2010 were right after the Manila facility was re-located. No problem so far with the tanks, although they did apply a god-awful amount of Pro-seal on the outside. My flaps and aileron trailing edges were awful. They had used something to squeeze the rivets instead of doing the double flush riveting the plans called for. Substantially dented the skins on the underside. Vans replaced them with a set that were only half as bad, but still done wrong. My fuselage was bad as well. The dimpled skins were riveted to the longerons without any countersinking on the longerons. I had to drill out all of those rivets, remove the longerons, countersink and reassemble. Not to mention the longeron in front of the baggage door was not cut to length, nor were those behind the baggage compartment. Lots of fun cutting longeron without nicking the skin it is riveted to. On 2/11/2017 5:01 PM, Danny Riggs wrote: > > I never had any weeping rivets but one of my seams wasn't sealed properly and I had to cut open the tank after it was installed to fix. > I did repair a QB RV-10 fuselage where there was an area of about 15" by 48" that over lapped. They hadn't even removed the plastic coating sheet where it overlapped. That said, on my RV-10 they did a nice job on the riveting. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Feb 11, 2017, at 4:59 PM, Bob Turner wrote: >> >> >> I suspect it's hit and miss, e.g., there used to be a worse-than average record for cars built on a Monday (presumably the workers were all hung over). >> My QB kit picked up March 2008, so far no leaks. I did nothing special. >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466030#466030 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: W1002 Weldment Query
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Feb 12, 2017
I too had issues with alignment. I used a rope and Polly to stretch the mount. I was able to get all holes lined up. I started with the top, which lined up without much effort for me, then the bottom two outside holes which required a lot of stretching. The hard part was inserting the bolts after having to remove the mount again. -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466044#466044 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: W1002 Weldment Query
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Feb 12, 2017
Hmmm This sounds like the problem I had. Unfortunately, when I used clamps and ropes etc there was a significant flex in the firewall due to the weldments. To me it seems like there is a design issue here. Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466046#466046 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2017
Subject: Re: W1002 Weldment Query
All these problems makes me want to go back and re-check mine. I didn't have any issues. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 12, 2017, at 9:17 AM, kearney wrote: > > > Hmmm > > This sounds like the problem I had. Unfortunately, when I used clamps and ropes etc there was a significant flex in the firewall due to the weldments. To me it seems like there is a design issue here. > > Cheers > > Les > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466046#466046 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2017
Subject: Re: W1002 Weldment Query
The W1002 is not the engine mount. He's talking about the part that it bolts to aft of the firewall. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 12, 2017, at 10:56 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > > > All these problems makes me want to go back and re-check mine. I didn't have any issues. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Feb 12, 2017, at 9:17 AM, kearney wrote: >> >> >> Hmmm >> >> This sounds like the problem I had. Unfortunately, when I used clamps and ropes etc there was a significant flex in the firewall due to the weldments. To me it seems like there is a design issue here. >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466046#466046 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2017
Subject: Re: W1002 Weldment Query
The area being discussed was built for you in your quick build. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > > All these problems makes me want to go back and re-check mine. I didn't > have any issues. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Feb 12, 2017, at 9:17 AM, kearney wrote: > > > > > > Hmmm > > > > This sounds like the problem I had. Unfortunately, when I used clamps > and ropes etc there was a significant flex in the firewall due to the > weldments. To me it seems like there is a design issue here. > > > > Cheers > > > > Les > > > > > > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466046#466046 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance
From: Outlook <s51flyer(at)wi.rr.com>
Date: Feb 13, 2017
Has anyone that has added rudder trim had to add any weight to the rudder counter balance? I cut a tab into the rudder as some builders have done vs. adding a hinge to the trailing edge. The weight difference is probably similar, except for maybe a bit more epoxy work to seal up the rudder tab edges. Not sure how tight the tolerance is on the counter weight and whether it's anything to worry about. Thanks in advance. Bob Orre... Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance
Date: Feb 13, 2017
This is a simple and effective rudder trim tab (not my idea - stole it). Trim the tab as needed to get the ball in the center in cruise. Hard to see but the tab has a ~30 degree bend aft. No added rudder counter balance weight. I started out with the ball touching the left line. Now it is in the center. Do this only after you are double check that your gear leg fairing are not the cause of your ball being out. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Outlook Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 8:22 PM Subject: RV10-List: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance Has anyone that has added rudder trim had to add any weight to the rudder counter balance? I cut a tab into the rudder as some builders have done vs. adding a hinge to the trailing edge. The weight difference is probably similar, except for maybe a bit more epoxy work to seal up the rudder tab edges. Not sure how tight the tolerance is on the counter weight and whether it's anything to worry about. Thanks in advance. Bob Orre... Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Feb 13, 2017
The finish documents give the tolerance for rudder and other control surface balance. On 2/13/2017 6:22 PM, Outlook wrote: > > Has anyone that has added rudder trim had to add any weight to the rudder counter balance? I cut a tab into the rudder as some builders have done vs. adding a hinge to the trailing edge. The weight difference is probably similar, except for maybe a bit more epoxy work to seal up the rudder tab edges. > > Not sure how tight the tolerance is on the counter weight and whether it's anything to worry about. > > Thanks in advance. > > Bob Orre... > > Sent from my iPad > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Champion Slick Magneto Maintenance Kits - new to me
Date: Feb 15, 2017
I was in the process of buying a couple of rebuilt (not overhauled) Slick Mags to replace my 800+ hour Mags. Aircraft Spruce carries them (along with new and overhauled). However, my last search in ACS turned up Champion Slick Magneto Maintenance Kits as shown here: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/slickmagmaintkit.php?clickkey=4368 http://www.championaerospace.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/FINAL-Magneto-Kit-Flyer.pdf The hadn't noticed this as an option before but looks very attractive. I've already fooled around with mine to comply with an earlier Service Directive and would love to do the work myself if I can bring the Mags back up to the rebuilt standard. Is anyone familiar with these kits? Do they contain what is needed to bring used mags up to the rebuilt standard? All input welcome. Bill "Ready for FIKI season to end" Watson --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Belue <kdb.rv10(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2017
Subject: Re: Champion Slick Magneto Maintenance Kits - new to me
Personally, I don't like to take chances with mag problems. I've had 2 occurrences of near engine out experiences with mags because I didn't keep a close check on mag condition. Now, I buy overhauled mags from a reputable source and have a complete mag check at 500 hrs. On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Bill Watson wrote: > > I was in the process of buying a couple of rebuilt (not overhauled) Slick > Mags to replace my 800+ hour Mags. Aircraft Spruce carries them (along > with new and overhauled). > > However, my last search in ACS turned up Champion Slick Magneto > Maintenance Kits as shown here: > https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/slickmagmaint > kit.php?clickkey=4368 > http://www.championaerospace.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ > FINAL-Magneto-Kit-Flyer.pdf > > The hadn't noticed this as an option before but looks very attractive. > I've already fooled around with mine to comply with an earlier Service > Directive and would love to do the work myself if I can bring the Mags back > up to the rebuilt standard. > > Is anyone familiar with these kits? Do they contain what is needed to > bring used mags up to the rebuilt standard? All input welcome. > > Bill "Ready for FIKI season to end" Watson > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Gurley" <rngurley(at)att.net>
Subject: RV10 Parts available
Date: Feb 15, 2017
I have machined two excess static ports and a tail light adapter available for anyone who needs them. These are machined parts that are commercially available from Cleveland Tools - but the only payment I would need is for shipping. Please let me know off line if you would like them. Dick ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gulf" <fgcobble(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: RV10 Parts available
Date: Feb 15, 2017
Sounds like a good opportunity to me - what do you need me to do? Francis Gularte, Ventura, CA #40888 From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Gurley Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 6:01 PM Subject: RV10-List: RV10 Parts available I have machined two excess static ports and a tail light adapter available for anyone who needs them. These are machined parts that are commercially available from Cleveland Tools - but the only payment I would need is for shipping. Please let me know off line if you would like them. Dick ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: Fuel pressure problems continuing
Date: Feb 15, 2017
Hi everyone. My RV-10 has 9 hours of flight time so far with a factory new Lycoming IO-540 D4A5. On the last flight I did a couple of weeks ago, I tried a full rich climb to 10000', but ended up with my fuel pressure dropping down to around 11 psi when I got to 8700', at which point I turned on the boost pump and got the pressure back up to around 20 psi. Back down at a lower altitude, I tried turning off the boost pump, and the engine pump maintained pressure at 22 psi. But something was clearly not right, and since I was pretty much at the right time to do an oil and oil filter change anyway, thought it was a good time to do the equivalent of an "annual" to make sure everything was still looking good, and try and sort out the problem. Looking at my logs from past flights, typically my fuel pressure with the engine pump has been about 20-23 psi at 6000', 21 gph (full rich). I have typically seen higher pressures on the ground (27-29 psi) at lower RPMs and fuel flows. My fuel system is pretty much stock Van's, except I have an Andair fuel selector with an extension so it's lower in the tunnel, and I have gascolators in the wing roots (here in Canada, we require them). The fuel pump, filter, and fuel flow transducer (red cube) are all in the tunnel, as per plans. I thought I'd start with looking at the gascolator screens, since they're the easiest to get to, and being the first filters from the tanks to the engine, likely to collect the most. And I thought I hit the jackpot - both screens had some sort of lint buildup in them. I thought I'd kept the tanks clean while constructing, but guess it wasn't as good as I thought. So I cleaned them up figuring I found the problem (assuming that since they caught debris, likely there wasn't anything blocking things further down the line), changed the oil and filter, put things back together and figured I'd go flying. But in doing my runup, after a few minutes when the engine was getting warm and running at relatively low RPMs, I turned the boost pump on for a few seconds and then back off. When I turned it off, I saw the pressure dropping slowly. It got down to around 13 psi. I tried advancing the throttle a bit to see if maybe the engine was running too slow to provide enough fuel pressure, and the engine promptly died. No sputtering or anything - just quit, like I pulled the mixture to ICO and that's what I wanted it to do. It's not done that before. Obviously, at this point I wasn't going flying until I could figure out what was wrong. I managed to restart the engine (after a bit of effort - the engine had warmed up a bit, and I'm still sorting out the best way to do that). I couldn't get it to die again in the runup, so I decided to do a few high speed taxis/aborted takeoffs (fortunately, I'm at a quiet airport). Normally when I take off, I use the boost pump - this time I purposely left it off to see how the engine pump handled things on its own. I did three, and every time when I brought the engine up to full power and started a takeoff roll, the fuel pressure dropped significantly. Twice down to 12 or 13 psi. When I throttled back, the pressure came back up again. And this was tested on both left and right tanks - both behaved the same. So back to the drawing board, assuming there is still a blockage or restriction somewhere. I re-removed the gascolator screens again in case there was further contamination, but they look clean.. as do the fuel strainers that go into the tanks. Tomorrow, the plan is to get into the tunnel to check the fuel filter there (not looking forward to that - I'm going to have to remove a bunch of stuff to get into there, and had thought that since the gascolator screens had caught debris, the one in the tunnel likely will be fine). Nevertheless, it looks like I'm going to have to inspect the whole fuel system with a fine toothed comb to try and find if there's a blockage or something. I don't think there are any kinks in the lines - they were all bent with a tube bender and looked OK when I installed them, but I'll be taking another close look of course. While I have everything apart, if anyone has any ideas of what to check, I'd greatly appreciate them - I want to make sure I'm as thorough as possible, and don't want to close things up only to realize later I should have checked something else out while I was in there. The engine (and presumably fuel pump) were new from Lycoming, though they sat for about 1.5 years with preservative oil. How likely is it that the fuel pump itself might be the problem? The boost pump manages to bring my pressure back up to where it's supposed to be, but considering its design is different, it might be more tolerant to a fuel system's quirks. Thanks for any help or advice! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Date: Feb 16, 2017
Dan, just a wild guess, but please check as well all your fuel connection for either a loose connection or a flare which might be compromised (you probably should see some signs of Avgas there). We had 10 years ago an accident with an RV-9 where the engine quit, reason were incorrect flares and over torquing of fuel connections. A partly blocked injector on #1 might have been a factor. Good luck in finding the reason. Cheers Werner ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Gurley" <rngurley(at)att.net>
Subject: RV10 Parts available
Date: Feb 16, 2017
Francis - I am sorry you were just a few minutes too late. I already have given these parts away. Sorry Dick From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gulf Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 9:37 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: RV10 Parts available Sounds like a good opportunity to me - what do you need me to do? Francis Gularte, Ventura, CA #40888 From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Gurley Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 6:01 PM Subject: RV10-List: RV10 Parts available I have machined two excess static ports and a tail light adapter available for anyone who needs them. These are machined parts that are commercially available from Cleveland Tools - but the only payment I would need is for shipping. Please let me know off line if you would like them. Dick ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David" <dlm34077(at)cox.net>
Subject: FW: fuel flow at takeoff power
Date: Feb 16, 2017
I have been adjusting the mixture control cable attempting to make the control hit both the full rich stop and the idle cutoff stop. It appears that the cable (AS custom with Teflon cores) is about .050 inch shorter in the throw than expected. The result is that the adjustment is close but not exact. Although I can adjust the rich stop within .030 and the idle cut off stop within .010, I still wonder whether fuel flow is sufficient for takeoff power. Current fuel flow gauge says about 24 +- .5 gph and idle cutoff requires that the control be fully aft. Anyone have any numbers that they use to confirm proper fuel flow for takeoff. The IO540 book seems to say that 24-25 gph is correct. I am now determining whether to re make the hole in the mixture control arm or order a new cable ($200); the cable cost is not the problem but the labor (lots?) necessary to re install another cable. I have also been told by Precision Air Motive (PAM) that sufficient fuel flow is certain when leaning to peak at full power shows at least 100f rich of peak is obtained. Any comments or suggestions? David McNeill --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: fuel flow at takeoff power
From: "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2017
I had the same issue with the new cables. Another good reminder for anyone upgrading their control cables, get them with a 1/8" longer throw. You could check engine monitor data and compare takeoff EGTs before and after the control cable swap. I ended up playing with the adjustments until i got to a compromise similar to yours. EGTs and fuel flows are the same as before. I wouldn't be leaning anywhere close to peak EGT at full power though. -------- Lenny N311LZ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466273#466273 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2017
Subject: Re: FW: fuel flow at takeoff power
That fuel flow sounds to be on the low side of normal. If you can get to he f ull rich stop and lean enough to get the engine to quit at idle, that is whe re I would leave it. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad > On Feb 16, 2017, at 7:28 AM, David wrote: > > > I have been adjusting the mixture control cable attempting to make the con trol hit both the full rich stop and the idle cutoff stop. It appears that t he cable (AS custom with Teflon cores) is about .050 inch shorter in the thr ow than expected. The result is that the adjustment is close but not exact. A lthough I can adjust the rich stop within .030 and the idle cut off stop wit hin .010, I still wonder whether fuel flow is sufficient for takeoff power. C urrent fuel flow gauge says about 24 +- .5 gph and idle cutoff requires that the control be fully aft. Anyone have any numbers that they use to confirm p roper fuel flow for takeoff. The IO540 book seems to say that 24-25 gph is c orrect. I am now determining whether to re make the hole in the mixture cont rol arm or order a new cable ($200); the cable cost is not the problem but t he labor (lots?) necessary to re install another cable. I have also been tol d by Precision Air Motive (PAM) that sufficient fuel flow is certain when le aning to peak at full power shows at least 100f rich of peak is obtained. An y comments or suggestions? > > David McNeill > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: fuel flow at takeoff power
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Feb 16, 2017
24-25 is what I see -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466275#466275 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2017
Subject: Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing
I'm not sure I have any good ideas of where to look, nor why some RV-10s seem to have similar problems and others don't. I have pretty much the same setup you do, except no gascolators, and my fuel flow sending unit is between the servo and the flow distributor. I have not detected any issues. I just looked at my last flight. Fuel pressure dipped to 18.6 as full throttle was applied for takeoff without boost pump. Immediately came back up to over 23, and for almost all of the flight was between 25 and 26. That includes a climb to density altitude of 9500. My takeoff fuel flow is about 22.7, with field elevation of 1240. I wish it were another gph higher, as my EGT on some cylinders goes over 1300 on initial climb. I'd say your engine quit because the pressure was too low for the servo to deliver the required fuel. It is supposed to have 15 psi minimum. How hard would it be to take the gascolator out of the system for a test, just on one tank, to see if it makes a difference? The other item I would consider testing for pressure drop is the fuel flow sending unit. IIRC it does have a measurable drop, which is one reason why it is preferable to have it positioned after the mechanical fuel pump, either between the pump and servo, or the servo and flow divider. I normally would suggest verifying the fuel pressure, but your symptoms match your reported pressures. My other aircraft is a 200 hp Mooney with exactly the same mechanical pump and RSA5 fuel servo. It was certified without any filter between the tanks and the fuel servo inlet filter. It has the same Pro-sealed wet wings, no gascolator, just a screen in the fuel selector body. Fuel pressure is very similar to what I see on my RV-10. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > Hi everyone. > > My RV-10 has 9 hours of flight time so far with a factory new Lycoming > IO-540 D4A5. On the last flight I did a couple of weeks ago, I tried a > full rich climb to 10000', but ended up with my fuel pressure dropping down > to around 11 psi when I got to 8700', at which point I turned on the boost > pump and got the pressure back up to around 20 psi. Back down at a lower > altitude, I tried turning off the boost pump, and the engine pump > maintained pressure at 22 psi. But something was clearly not right, and > since I was pretty much at the right time to do an oil and oil filter > change anyway, thought it was a good time to do the equivalent of an > "annual" to make sure everything was still looking good, and try and sort > out the problem. > > Looking at my logs from past flights, typically my fuel pressure with the > engine pump has been about 20-23 psi at 6000', 21 gph (full rich). I have > typically seen higher pressures on the ground (27-29 psi) at lower RPMs and > fuel flows. > > My fuel system is pretty much stock Van's, except I have an Andair fuel > selector with an extension so it's lower in the tunnel, and I have > gascolators in the wing roots (here in Canada, we require them). The fuel > pump, filter, and fuel flow transducer (red cube) are all in the tunnel, as > per plans. > > > But in doing my runup, after a few minutes when the engine was getting > warm and running at relatively low RPMs, I turned the boost pump on for a > few seconds and then back off. When I turned it off, I saw the pressure > dropping slowly. It got down to around 13 psi. I tried advancing the > throttle a bit to see if maybe the engine was running too slow to provide > enough fuel pressure, and the engine promptly died. No sputtering or > anything - just quit, like I pulled the mixture to ICO and that's what I > wanted it to do. It's not done that before. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2017
Subject: Re: FW: fuel flow at takeoff power
Remember that your field elevation is almost 1400 ft and your density altitude is normally above 2000 ft. Fuel flow will decrease with altitude, because you cannot get to 29" of MP. I see about 22.7 to maybe 23 gph, and would like to have 24" What is your EGT on hottest couple cylinders right after liftoff? If below 1300 you have nothing to worry about. I got my cables from McFarlane ($$$) that are a little long, and have no problem getting full mixture travel. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM, David wrote: > > > I have been adjusting the mixture control cable attempting to make the > control hit both the full rich stop and the idle cutoff stop. It appears > that the cable (AS custom with Teflon cores) is about .050 inch shorter in > the throw than expected. The result is that the adjustment is close but not > exact. Although I can adjust the rich stop within .030 and the idle cut off > stop within .010, I still wonder whether fuel flow is sufficient for > takeoff power. Current fuel flow gauge says about 24 +- .5 gph and idle > cutoff requires that the control be fully aft. Anyone have any numbers that > they use to confirm proper fuel flow for takeoff. The IO540 book seems to > say that 24-25 gph is correct. I am now determining whether to re make the > hole in the mixture control arm or order a new cable ($200); the cable cost > is not the problem but the labor (lots?) necessary to re install another > cable. I have also been told by Precision Air Motive (PAM) that sufficient > fuel flow is certain when leaning to peak at full power shows at least 100f > rich of peak is obtained. Any comments or suggestions? > > > David McNeill > > > ------------------------------ > [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: Feb 16, 2017
Subject: Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing
I went back and checked. Lycoming says minimum fuel pressure required is 14 psi. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > I'm not sure I have any good ideas of where to look, nor why some RV-10s > seem to have similar problems and others don't. > I have pretty much the same setup you do, except no gascolators, and my > fuel flow sending unit is between the servo and the flow distributor. I > have not detected any issues. I just looked at my last flight. Fuel > pressure dipped to 18.6 as full throttle was applied for takeoff without > boost pump. Immediately came back up to over 23, and for almost all of the > flight was between 25 and 26. That includes a climb to density altitude of > 9500. > My takeoff fuel flow is about 22.7, with field elevation of 1240. I wish > it were another gph higher, as my EGT on some cylinders goes over 1300 on > initial climb. > I'd say your engine quit because the pressure was too low for the servo to > deliver the required fuel. It is supposed to have 15 psi minimum. > How hard would it be to take the gascolator out of the system for a test, > just on one tank, to see if it makes a difference? The other item I would > consider testing for pressure drop is the fuel flow sending unit. IIRC it > does have a measurable drop, which is one reason why it is preferable to > have it positioned after the mechanical fuel pump, either between the pump > and servo, or the servo and flow divider. > I normally would suggest verifying the fuel pressure, but your symptoms > match your reported pressures. > My other aircraft is a 200 hp Mooney with exactly the same mechanical > pump and RSA5 fuel servo. It was certified without any filter between the > tanks and the fuel servo inlet filter. It has the same Pro-sealed wet > wings, no gascolator, just a screen in the fuel selector body. Fuel > pressure is very similar to what I see on my RV-10. > > -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: > >> >> Hi everyone. >> >> My RV-10 has 9 hours of flight time so far with a factory new Lycoming >> IO-540 D4A5. On the last flight I did a couple of weeks ago, I tried a >> full rich climb to 10000', but ended up with my fuel pressure dropping down >> to around 11 psi when I got to 8700', at which point I turned on the boost >> pump and got the pressure back up to around 20 psi. Back down at a lower >> altitude, I tried turning off the boost pump, and the engine pump >> maintained pressure at 22 psi. But something was clearly not right, and >> since I was pretty much at the right time to do an oil and oil filter >> change anyway, thought it was a good time to do the equivalent of an >> "annual" to make sure everything was still looking good, and try and sort >> out the problem. >> >> Looking at my logs from past flights, typically my fuel pressure with the >> engine pump has been about 20-23 psi at 6000', 21 gph (full rich). I have >> typically seen higher pressures on the ground (27-29 psi) at lower RPMs and >> fuel flows. >> >> My fuel system is pretty much stock Van's, except I have an Andair fuel >> selector with an extension so it's lower in the tunnel, and I have >> gascolators in the wing roots (here in Canada, we require them). The fuel >> pump, filter, and fuel flow transducer (red cube) are all in the tunnel, as >> per plans. >> >> >> But in doing my runup, after a few minutes when the engine was getting >> warm and running at relatively low RPMs, I turned the boost pump on for a >> few seconds and then back off. When I turned it off, I saw the pressure >> dropping slowly. It got down to around 13 psi. I tried advancing the >> throttle a bit to see if maybe the engine was running too slow to provide >> enough fuel pressure, and the engine promptly died. No sputtering or >> anything - just quit, like I pulled the mixture to ICO and that's what I >> wanted it to do. It's not done that before. >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Feb 16, 2017
Hi Dan I would go back to first principles. The first thing I would do would be to break the fuel line after the mechanical fuel pump and measure the fuel flow with just the electric pump. I did this using a 25l jerry and timed how long it would take to fill. If the fuel flow is too low, that would suggest the problem is between the tank and the pump. I think I was getting a free flow of 50-60 GPH. If the flow is ok, I would also check the fuel pressure transducer and see if it is reading correctly. Given that the fuel pressure line has an inline reducer, I would also see if there is any small debris blocking the reducer. Did you use the USHER gascolator. I did use these and found that they were not a problem. As far as cable throws are concerned, there should be a bit of "bounce" in the cables where the cables hit the stops BEFORE the cable is all the way in at the control panel (say about 1/8"). This ensures complete travel. Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466281#466281 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Masys" <dmasys(at)u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Champion Slick Magneto Maintenance Kits
Date: Feb 16, 2017
I purchased that Champion Slick Magneto Maintenance kit but ended up not using it when I got a chance to visit the closest magneto specialty shop and watched how they do inspections and rebuilds. The major deal is not the rebuilding, but the subsequent testing of the mags, which they do in a special oven running the mag at a variety of speeds and, for turbo engine mags, reduced air pressures. That specialized test equipment is quite expensive, out of the reach of homebuilders, but it makes a big difference in knowing that a IRAN'd or rebuilt mag is up to the task. Just had a 500 hr. Slick 6393 mag inspection done by Aircraft Electrical Components in Redding, CA (FAA licensed repair station for lots of electrical stuff on airplanes) and they turned it around quickly for $275. Better than expected... -Dan Masys RV-10 N104LD 960 hrs. _______________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> Subject: RV10-List: Champion Slick Magneto Maintenance Kits - new to me I was in the process of buying a couple of rebuilt (not overhauled) Slick Mags to replace my 800+ hour Mags. Aircraft Spruce carries them (along with new and overhauled). However, my last search in ACS turned up Champion Slick Magneto Maintenance Kits as shown here: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/slickmagmaintkit.php?clickkey =4368 http://www.championaerospace.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/FINAL-Magneto-Ki t-Flyer.pdf The hadn't noticed this as an option before but looks very attractive. I've already fooled around with mine to comply with an earlier Service Directive and would love to do the work myself if I can bring the Mags back up to the rebuilt standard. Is anyone familiar with these kits? Do they contain what is needed to bring used mags up to the rebuilt standard? All input welcome. Bill "Ready for FIKI season to end" Watson ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: fuel flow at takeoff power
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Feb 16, 2017
Are undrilled mixture control arms available? That might be the easiest solution. You might also look at re-clocking that arm. If the arm is currently perpendicular to the cable at mid-setting, that will take the most control throw to get the desired rotation. If you remove the arm, rotate it, re-install, you may make up the small length you need to go stop to stop. Of course don't go over-center. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466284#466284 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing
Date: Feb 16, 2017
> On 2017-Feb-16, at 6:57 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > I'm not sure I have any good ideas of where to look, nor why some RV-10s seem to have similar problems and others don't. > I have pretty much the same setup you do, except no gascolators, and my fuel flow sending unit is between the servo and the flow distributor. I have not detected any issues. I just looked at my last flight. Fuel pressure dipped to 18.6 as full throttle was applied for takeoff without boost pump. Immediately came back up to over 23, and for almost all of the flight was between 25 and 26. That includes a climb to density altitude of 9500. > My takeoff fuel flow is about 22.7, with field elevation of 1240. I wish it were another gph higher, as my EGT on some cylinders goes over 1300 on initial climb. > I'd say your engine quit because the pressure was too low for the servo to deliver the required fuel. It is supposed to have 15 psi minimum. > How hard would it be to take the gascolator out of the system for a test, just on one tank, to see if it makes a difference? Not terribly hard - I could pull the gascolator in one of the wings and make a little "patch" fuel line between the tank and the line currently connected to the output of the gascolator. If I can't find the problem elsewhere, that's a great idea of something to try. > The other item I would consider testing for pressure drop is the fuel flow sending unit. IIRC it does have a measurable drop, which is one reason why it is preferable to have it positioned after the mechanical fuel pump, either between the pump and servo, or the servo and flow divider. I wish I would have put it there in the first place - even if it's not the primary source of the problems I'm having, it's notoriously inaccurate when the boost pump is running. I've been avoiding moving it if the only problem is inaccurate readings of fuel flow when the boost pump is running, but if it's a contributing factor to the fuel pressure problems, I may have to bite the bullet. > I normally would suggest verifying the fuel pressure, but your symptoms match your reported pressures. Yes... when I was flying and it got down to 11 psi momentarily and the engine kept running, I thought it's possible the pressure sender was at fault. However, yesterday during my runup when the engine quit when it got to around 13 psi, that pretty much exonerated the pressure sender to be at fault. Thanks for your suggestions! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing
Date: Feb 16, 2017
> Hi Dan > > I would go back to first principles. > > The first thing I would do would be to break the fuel line after the mechanical fuel pump and measure the fuel flow with just the electric pump. I did this using a 25l jerry and timed how long it would take to fill. If the fuel flow is too low, that would suggest the problem is between the tank and the pump. I think I was getting a free flow of 50-60 GPH. Hey Les. Yes, I've done a fuel flow test with the electrical pump right before my last runup where the engine quit, measuring the flow into a jerry can right before it goes into the throttle body. I tested the flow from both tanks, and in each case it was around 53 gph. So that's working OK (and the electric pump has successfully brought the pressures back into the 20+ range every time I've used it when the engine pump on its own was getting critically low). > > If the flow is ok, I would also check the fuel pressure transducer and see if it is reading correctly. Given that the fuel pressure line has an inline reducer, I would also see if there is any small debris blocking the reducer. I'd thought it might be an instrumentation problem, until my engine quit unexpectedly during the runup when I saw the fuel pressure get down to around 13 psi on the engine pump. Unless the engine quit for some other reason coincidentally, it seems to me the low pressure indication is a real problem. > > Did you use the USHER gascolator. I did use these and found that they were not a problem. Yes - two Usher gascolators, one in each wing root. And the low pressure indication seems independent on which tank I'm on. > > As far as cable throws are concerned, there should be a bit of "bounce" in the cables where the cables hit the stops BEFORE the cable is all the way in at the control panel (say about 1/8"). This ensures complete travel. I'm not sure how much bounce I have in the cables, but I know when they hit the stops at the throttle body in either direction, they can grab and hold onto a piece of paper between the mechanism and the stop, so I think the travel is pretty much where it should be. Over the next few days, the plan is to pull out the seats, centre console, throttle quadrant, etc. to get into the tunnel under the panel and pull out the fuel pump, filter, and flow transducer out of there to see if I can find anything not getting along. I know in the past when people have tried replacing their mechanical fuel pumps to solve similar issues, it's usually not been the culprit. With that said, I have to say that with everything I've tried so far, it's starting to look more and more guilty. Particularly during my last runup - I was at around 23 psi on the engine pump, turned on the boost pump for a few seconds which brought it up to about 26, and then when I turned off the boost pump, the pressure dropped steadily down to 13 psi at which point the engine quit. I suppose another possibility might be the electric pump bypass one way valve sticking? At any rate, I'll hopefully learn something useful when I pull things out of the tunnel. Thanks for the suggestions! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
Date: Feb 16, 2017
Hey all, I'm thinking of replacing my starter on my RV-10 with the NL starter. I think mine is the 149-12PM right now. Can anyone who's either swapped for an NL or has an NL comment on the fit of the starter in relation to all the other stuff... i.e. is there any realistic chance that if I swap starters its not going to fit well because of some interference somewhere else? If not, I'll go ahead and just order one. Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Belue <kdb.rv10(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2017
Subject: Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
Tim, I had the 149-12PM on my RV10 and it would hardly turn it over. I have 2 PC680 batteries, but that's hardly enough power. Your larger battery must help there. I changed to the NL starter and it's great. It fits just fine and has much more torque. I don't have any problems now starting on one PC680. I think it's the best starter for the RV10. Kevin Belue On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > Hey all, I'm thinking of replacing my starter on my RV-10 > with the NL starter. I think mine is the 149-12PM > right now. > > Can anyone who's either swapped for an NL or has an NL > comment on the fit of the starter in relation to all the > other stuff... i.e. is there any realistic chance that if I > swap starters its not going to fit well because of > some interference somewhere else? If not, I'll go ahead > and just order one. > > Tim > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
Date: Feb 16, 2017
What is the ~price on the NL? How much weight does it add? I do not have a problem with the starter working with the 925 batter, but I think I am developing a dead (weak) spot and will be replacing my starter this annual..unless the problem goes away when it gets warmer and I fly more. Rene' 801-721-6080 From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Belue Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:15 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter Tim, I had the 149-12PM on my RV10 and it would hardly turn it over. I have 2 PC680 batteries, but that's hardly enough power. Your larger battery must help there. I changed to the NL starter and it's great. It fits just fine and has much more torque. I don't have any problems now starting on one PC680. I think it's the best starter for the RV10. Kevin Belue On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Tim Olson > wrote: > Hey all, I'm thinking of replacing my starter on my RV-10 with the NL starter. I think mine is the 149-12PM right now. Can anyone who's either swapped for an NL or has an NL comment on the fit of the starter in relation to all the other stuff... i.e. is there any realistic chance that if I swap starters its not going to fit well because of some interference somewhere else? If not, I'll go ahead and just order one. Tim -List" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List FORUMS - _blank" rel="noreferrer">http://forums.matronics.com WIKI - lank" rel="noreferrer">http://wiki.matronics.com b Site - -Matt Dralle, List Admin. target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2017
Subject: Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
I have never seen a fit issue. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:59 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > Hey all, I'm thinking of replacing my starter on my RV-10 > with the NL starter. I think mine is the 149-12PM > right now. > > Can anyone who's either swapped for an NL or has an NL > comment on the fit of the starter in relation to all the > other stuff... i.e. is there any realistic chance that if I > swap starters its not going to fit well because of > some interference somewhere else? If not, I'll go ahead > and just order one. > > Tim > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2017
Thanks Kevin, I just hit "place order". Should have one next Wednesday. I haven't heard any negatives in all my reading so I'm going to go with it. My PC925 does work for the IO-540, but getting past that first prop blade sometimes takes a 2nd try. But once you start it spinning it does an OK job. I'm sure the NL will be better. I have an issue with my RV-14 starter not always cranking,b but when it cranks its great. It's an LS. I was hoping to pull my RV-10 starter and use it while I send that one in, but it's a PM and not an LS, and I don't think the cable lengths will work out. Oh well. Tim On 2/16/2017 4:14 PM, Kevin Belue wrote: > Tim, > > I had the 149-12PM on my RV10 and it would hardly turn it over. I have 2 > PC680 batteries, but that's hardly enough power. Your larger battery > must help there. I changed to the NL starter and it's great. It fits > just fine and has much more torque. I don't have any problems now > starting on one PC680. I think it's the best starter for the RV10. > > Kevin Belue > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Tim Olson > wrote: > > > Hey all, I'm thinking of replacing my starter on my RV-10 > with the NL starter. I think mine is the 149-12PM > right now. > > Can anyone who's either swapped for an NL or has an NL > comment on the fit of the starter in relation to all the > other stuff... i.e. is there any realistic chance that if I > swap starters its not going to fit well because of > some interference somewhere else? If not, I'll go ahead > and just order one. > > Tim > =================================== > -List" target="_blank" > rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > =================================== > FORUMS - > _blank" rel="noreferrer">http://forums.matronics.com > =================================== > WIKI - > lank" rel="noreferrer">http://wiki.matronics.com > =================================== > b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > =================================== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Belue <kdb.rv10(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2017
Subject: Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
The Skytec NL starter weighs 9.3 lbs and costs $436 at Aircraft Spruce. On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Rene wrote: > What is the ~price on the NL? How much weight does it add? I do not hav e > a problem with the starter working with the 925 batter, but I think I am > developing a dead (weak) spot and will be replacing my starter this > annual..unless the problem goes away when it gets warme r and I fly more. > > > Rene' > > 801-721-6080 <(801)%20721-6080> > > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list- > server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Kevin Belue > *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:15 PM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter > > > Tim, > > > I had the 149-12PM on my RV10 and it would hardly turn it over. I have 2 > PC680 batteries, but that's hardly enough power. Your larger battery must > help there. I changed to the NL starter and it's great. It fits just fine > and has much more torque. I don't have any problems now starting on one > PC680. I think it's the best starter for the RV10. > > > Kevin Belue > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > Hey all, I'm thinking of replacing my starter on my RV-10 > with the NL starter. I think mine is the 149-12PM > right now. > > Can anyone who's either swapped for an NL or has an NL > comment on the fit of the starter in relation to all the > other stuff... i.e. is there any realistic chance that if I > swap starters its not going to fit well because of > some interference somewhere else? If not, I'll go ahead > and just order one. > > Tim > ======================== =========== > -List" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www. > matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > ======================== =========== > FORUMS - > _blank" rel="noreferrer">http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > WIKI - > lank" rel="noreferrer">http://wiki.matronics.com > ========== > b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/contributio n > ======================== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2017
I had 2 choices. One was $499 from Sky-Tec and then trade mine in for a $154 credit, and the 2nd choice was $436 from ACS. I chose the latter. It looks like 1lb more than my PM starter. All the better for my CG when I load it up. Tim On 2/16/2017 4:28 PM, Rene wrote: > What is the ~price on the NL? How much weight does it add? I do not > have a problem with the starter working with the 925 batter, but I think > I am developing a dead (weak) spot and will be replacing my starter this > annual..unless the problem goes away when it gets warmer and I fly more. > > > Rene' > > 801-721-6080 > > > *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Kevin Belue > *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:15 PM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter > > > Tim, > > > I had the 149-12PM on my RV10 and it would hardly turn it over. I have 2 > PC680 batteries, but that's hardly enough power. Your larger battery > must help there. I changed to the NL starter and it's great. It fits > just fine and has much more torque. I don't have any problems now > starting on one PC680. I think it's the best starter for the RV10. > > > Kevin Belue > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Tim Olson > wrote: > > > > > Hey all, I'm thinking of replacing my starter on my RV-10 > with the NL starter. I think mine is the 149-12PM > right now. > > Can anyone who's either swapped for an NL or has an NL > comment on the fit of the starter in relation to all the > other stuff... i.e. is there any realistic chance that if I > swap starters its not going to fit well because of > some interference somewhere else? If not, I'll go ahead > and just order one. > > Tim > =================================== > -List" target="_blank" > rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > =================================== > FORUMS - > _blank" rel="noreferrer">http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > WIKI - > lank" rel="noreferrer">http://wiki.matronics.com > ========== > b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > =================================== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com>
Subject: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
Date: Feb 16, 2017
Thanks Tim, I am the same on the CG. I added a 680 on the firewall, almost 100% for CG reasons. Big battery, O2, and APRS all behind the rear bulkhead or in the tail. 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, February 16, 2017 3:42 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter I had 2 choices. One was $499 from Sky-Tec and then trade mine in for a $154 credit, and the 2nd choice was $436 from ACS. I chose the latter. It looks like 1lb more than my PM starter. All the better for my CG when I load it up. Tim On 2/16/2017 4:28 PM, Rene wrote: > What is the ~price on the NL? How much weight does it add? I do not > have a problem with the starter working with the 925 batter, but I think > I am developing a dead (weak) spot and will be replacing my starter this > annual..unless the problem goes away when it gets warmer and I fly more. > > > Rene' > > 801-721-6080 > > > *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Kevin Belue > *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:15 PM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter > > > Tim, > > > I had the 149-12PM on my RV10 and it would hardly turn it over. I have 2 > PC680 batteries, but that's hardly enough power. Your larger battery > must help there. I changed to the NL starter and it's great. It fits > just fine and has much more torque. I don't have any problems now > starting on one PC680. I think it's the best starter for the RV10. > > > Kevin Belue > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Tim Olson > wrote: > > > > > Hey all, I'm thinking of replacing my starter on my RV-10 > with the NL starter. I think mine is the 149-12PM > right now. > > Can anyone who's either swapped for an NL or has an NL > comment on the fit of the starter in relation to all the > other stuff... i.e. is there any realistic chance that if I > swap starters its not going to fit well because of > some interference somewhere else? If not, I'll go ahead > and just order one. > > Tim > =================================== > -List" target="_blank" > rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > =================================== > FORUMS - > _blank" rel="noreferrer">http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > WIKI - > lank" rel="noreferrer">http://wiki.matronics.com > ========== > b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > =================================== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2017
Subject: Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
Skytec has an option where you can send your starter to them for "rebuild" a nd get a different model back. Cheaper than buying a new one. I think the "r ebuilt" is just a new unit. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 16, 2017, at 5:28 PM, Rene wrote: > > What is the ~price on the NL? How much weight does it add? I do not have a problem with the starter working with the 925 batter, but I think I am de veloping a dead (weak) spot and will be replacing my starter this annual ..unless the problem goes away when it gets warmer and I fly mor e. > > Rene' > 801-721-6080 > > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Belue > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:15 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter > > Tim, > > I had the 149-12PM on my RV10 and it would hardly turn it over. I have 2 P C680 batteries, but that's hardly enough power. Your larger battery must hel p there. I changed to the NL starter and it's great. It fits just fine and h as much more torque. I don't have any problems now starting on one PC680. I t hink it's the best starter for the RV10. > > Kevin Belue > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > Hey all, I'm thinking of replacing my starter on my RV-10 > with the NL starter. I think mine is the 149-12PM > right now. > > Can anyone who's either swapped for an NL or has an NL > comment on the fit of the starter in relation to all the > other stuff... i.e. is there any realistic chance that if I > swap starters its not going to fit well because of > some interference somewhere else? If not, I'll go ahead > and just order one. > > Tim > ========================= > -List" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/Navig ator?RV10-List > ========================= > FORUMS - > _blank" rel="noreferrer">http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > WIKI - > lank" rel="noreferrer">http://wiki.matronics.com > ========== > b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > ========================= > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2017
Maybe I'll try that. If I send them my PM for a rebuild, I can get it back as an NL, and throw an NL on both airplanes. That would be nice. Tim On 2/16/2017 5:02 PM, Jesse Saint wrote: > Skytec has an option where you can send your starter to them for > "rebuild" and get a different model back. Cheaper than buying a new > one. I think the "rebuilt" is just a new unit. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > C: 352-427-0285 > F: 815-377-3694 > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 16, 2017, at 5:28 PM, Rene > wrote: > >> What is the ~price on the NL? How much weight does it add? I do not >> have a problem with the starter working with the 925 batter, but I >> think I am developing a dead (weak) spot and will be replacing my >> starter this annual..unless the problem goes away when it gets >> warmer and I fly more. >> >> Rene' >> >> 801-721-6080 >> >> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Kevin Belue >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:15 PM >> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter >> >> Tim, >> >> I had the 149-12PM on my RV10 and it would hardly turn it over. I >> have 2 PC680 batteries, but that's hardly enough power. Your larger >> battery must help there. I changed to the NL starter and it's great. >> It fits just fine and has much more torque. I don't have any problems >> now starting on one PC680. I think it's the best starter for the RV10. >> >> Kevin Belue >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Tim Olson > > wrote: >> >> > >> >> Hey all, I'm thinking of replacing my starter on my RV-10 >> with the NL starter. I think mine is the 149-12PM >> right now. >> >> Can anyone who's either swapped for an NL or has an NL >> comment on the fit of the starter in relation to all the >> other stuff... i.e. is there any realistic chance that if I >> swap starters its not going to fit well because of >> some interference somewhere else? If not, I'll go ahead >> and just order one. >> >> Tim >> =================================== >> -List" target="_blank" >> rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> =================================== >> FORUMS - >> _blank" rel="noreferrer">http://forums.matronics.com >> ========== >> WIKI - >> lank" rel="noreferrer">http://wiki.matronics.com >> ========== >> b Site - >> -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >> target="_blank" >> rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> =================================== >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating the
fuel flow transducer
Date: Feb 17, 2017
Hi everyone. I thought I'd report back that I've pulled apart most of the fuel lines, including those in the tunnel and unfortunately haven't yet found any blockage or cause for the low pressure I'd been experiencing (the tunnel fuel filter is completely clean, and there don't seem to be any leaks or issues with any of the fuel connections). I'm still going to check further (and perhaps try bypassing a gascolator), but I seem to be quickly eliminating things my low fuel pressure problem is not likely caused by, rather than finding anything that it might be. One suspect (however unlikely) still remains with the one way bypass valve around the boost pump, since the boost pump seems to bring the pressure up, and the bypass valve is only used with the engine pump. But the valve seems to be cemented to the pump manifold with some sort of white compound, so I haven't been easily able to remove it to check. Or perhaps the engine pump itself could be a problem, though it's factory new, so I'm not sure how likely that is either. But while I have everything apart, I'm thinking of possibly relocating my fuel flow transducer from the tunnel to somewhere after the engine pump (I'm not sure if the transducer is the culprit either, but putting it after the engine pump can't hurt, plus would give me more accurate readings with the boost pump on). But where are people putting it? The most convenient location in the engine compartment would be to mount it to a bracket on the engine mount and locate it right after the engine pump, on the way to the throttle body. But if it's right after the engine pump, would I really be accomplishing anything different than its current location right after the boost pump? Would the engine pump cause similar problems in transducer accuracy if the transducer is placed there? Thanks! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Belue <kdb.rv10(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
Subject: Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating
the fuel flow transducer When I had the fuel flow sensor in the tunnel it would fluctuate a lot with the fuel pump and I didn't like that. So I moved it so that it is between the fuel servo and the divider and it is accurate there. I think it will work well for you in that position. On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:38 AM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > Hi everyone. > > I thought I'd report back that I've pulled apart most of the fuel lines, > including those in the tunnel and unfortunately haven't yet found any > blockage or cause for the low pressure I'd been experiencing (the tunnel > fuel filter is completely clean, and there don't seem to be any leaks or > issues with any of the fuel connections). I'm still going to check further > (and perhaps try bypassing a gascolator), but I seem to be quickly > eliminating things my low fuel pressure problem is not likely caused by, > rather than finding anything that it might be. One suspect (however > unlikely) still remains with the one way bypass valve around the boost > pump, since the boost pump seems to bring the pressure up, and the bypass > valve is only used with the engine pump. But the valve seems to be > cemented to the pump manifold with some sort of white compound, so I > haven't been easily able to remove it to check. Or perhaps the engine pump > itself could be a problem, though it's factory new, so I'! > m not sure how likely that is either. > > But while I have everything apart, I'm thinking of possibly relocating my > fuel flow transducer from the tunnel to somewhere after the engine pump > (I'm not sure if the transducer is the culprit either, but putting it after > the engine pump can't hurt, plus would give me more accurate readings with > the boost pump on). But where are people putting it? The most convenient > location in the engine compartment would be to mount it to a bracket on the > engine mount and locate it right after the engine pump, on the way to the > throttle body. But if it's right after the engine pump, would I really be > accomplishing anything different than its current location right after the > boost pump? Would the engine pump cause similar problems in transducer > accuracy if the transducer is placed there? > > Thanks! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
Subject: Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating
the fuel flow transducer Dan, I think the best place for the red cube is between the servo and the fuel distributor (spider). I like the method shown in these pics. It's an -8, but the idea is the same. Fab a steel bracket that catches the two forward servo-to-sump mounting bolts. I'd be looking pretty close at your engine pump at this point, or your pressure sender. --Dave [image: Inline image 2][image: Inline image 1] On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > Hi everyone. > > I thought I'd report back that I've pulled apart most of the fuel lines, > including those in the tunnel and unfortunately haven't yet found any > blockage or cause for the low pressure I'd been experiencing (the tunnel > fuel filter is completely clean, and there don't seem to be any leaks or > issues with any of the fuel connections). I'm still going to check further > (and perhaps try bypassing a gascolator), but I seem to be quickly > eliminating things my low fuel pressure problem is not likely caused by, > rather than finding anything that it might be. One suspect (however > unlikely) still remains with the one way bypass valve around the boost > pump, since the boost pump seems to bring the pressure up, and the bypass > valve is only used with the engine pump. But the valve seems to be > cemented to the pump manifold with some sort of white compound, so I > haven't been easily able to remove it to check. Or perhaps the engine pump > itself could be a problem, though it's factory new, so I'! > m not sure how likely that is either. > > But while I have everything apart, I'm thinking of possibly relocating my > fuel flow transducer from the tunnel to somewhere after the engine pump > (I'm not sure if the transducer is the culprit either, but putting it after > the engine pump can't hurt, plus would give me more accurate readings with > the boost pump on). But where are people putting it? The most convenient > location in the engine compartment would be to mount it to a bracket on the > engine mount and locate it right after the engine pump, on the way to the > throttle body. But if it's right after the engine pump, would I really be > accomplishing anything different than its current location right after the > boost pump? Would the engine pump cause similar problems in transducer > accuracy if the transducer is placed there? > > Thanks! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating
the fuel flow transducer
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
Hi Dan, I did not reply to your email a couple days ago but will quick jump in now. First, when you said your engine died on you, nobody at that point will give you the guidance to not investigate that. My engine has never once died when giving throttle, and if yours did, everything should probably be checked out unless you can find a legitimate cause. That said, this all happened right after you tore some things apart, which would leave areas of fuel lines with air in them. I would expect unusual engine response until you get this air out of the system. If you pull apart fuel lines, you should disconnect the fuel lines after the fuel pumps, and run the boost pump into a container for a while and make sure to purge any air out of the lines, before starting. That would minimize this a little. Beyond that, nothing you stated in that email is highly unusual. If you climb lower than 120kts or so, and do an extended climb to 10,000', in my experience, you have a high chance that after about 8,000' at some point you may start to see a reduction in fuel pressure. Some people say they never see it. I know many who have. Unless you are looking for it and have an audible alarm set you may never even know. I set my yellow alert for 16psi, and red for 10 or 11, and I never get a red alert, but I do stare at it when it gets below 16. I usually let it go and don't hit the boost right away, but first lower the nose and climb at a higher speed, and make sure I've leaned for climb. A reduction in fuel requirement and temperature helps it. If not, the boost goes on. I have no leaks in any fuel lines, and nothing for blockages. Now your other point was that you advanced the throttle and the fuel pressure dropped. If you saw that video that was going around on the forums a couple weeks ago, this makes perfect sense. It also happens to me many times. If I try a takeoff without boost pump, within 1 second of going full throttle I may get a warning, but by the time I can glance to the fuel pressure gauge, the warning is gone. First, this is good because it's a reminder that we should be using the boost pump during takeoff. We should try to correct our form if we aren't doing that. But second, just like the video says, you can have high flow and low pressure, or high pressure and low flow, but you're going to get one or the other and that is determined by the fuel servo. When you rapidly advance the throttle, the fuel servo demands instantaneous fuel flow. This flow causes lowered pressure in the line after the engine pump, where the pressure transducer is located. The pump stroke of course, as the video shows, is variable because of the way the arm and spring interact, so it may take a couple of pump cycles for that diaphragm to move up and down enough to start flowing more fuel to meet this need. The pump has limits to how quickly it can fill this reduction in pressure. In your situation it was still worth checking for air leaks around the pump inlet, but as these are factory built hoses and steel fittings on the pump, you're not likely to find a bad flare or something be the cause, so the probability is low that you'll find something other than a loose fuel hose. Anyway, without the boost pump on, I would absolutely expect a very short term, momentary loss of fuel pressure when quickly advancing the throttle. The quicker the advance, the more likely you'll see it. So none of that shocked me and caused me to think you had an issue. I doubt you do have any unusual issue, personally, but as I said, with your engine stoppage, it's probably the time to do as you did and tear it apart. But, after not finding anything, prime those fuel lines and put it together and see where you're at again. The gascolators are something most of us don't have, so perhaps you can look into those for flow restriction. I wouldn't expect it there though. Regarding your flow transducer, yes, when it's in the tunnel it won't read accurately with the boost pump on. It may fluctuate more too during operation. You didn't mention which type you have. Mine is the FlowScan in the RV-10 and the red cube in the RV-14. I don't know how much restriction the FlowScan causes, but if you have the same, maybe that is why we see some of this where others don't. The thing is, with the RV-10 fleet, you can't count on all of us having everything 100% the same. Mine is 100% per plans...except for the braided lines, which I DO find have more restriction than solid lines, as well. When building the RV-14 I compared the effort to blow air thru solid lines vs braided and there is definitely a difference. All these things can account for small differences in what people report. Moving your transducer may improve it's stability, but I would find it unlikely to change your fuel pressure reduction issues. It may, but I would be skeptical until you try it and say it did. Personally, I don't see enough variation (fluctuation) to worry about it much, and my boost pump is off by 1000' on takeoff so the effect on my totalizer value is minimal and I don't worry about it. Beside that, by using the boost pump and the reading being higher, it just gives me that tiny bit of extra margin on remaining fuel. Were it the other way, where it reduced my margin by showing lower flow, I'd definitely change it because I want more, not less, fuel than indicated on the totalizer. But if you are motivated to move the transducer, I say go for it. Do it, and let us know how it goes. Just don't do it expecting it to fix the pressure drop....let that be a benefit if you get lucky. I've only had mine flying for 11 years and 1230+ hours, and only have experience with my RV-10 that is first hand, so my info is only worth 1.5 cents with inflation. In a few years, you will have your own first hand experience to share when the next guy asks this question. Tim On 2/17/2017 5:38 AM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > Hi everyone. > > I thought I'd report back that I've pulled apart most of the fuel > lines, including those in the tunnel and unfortunately haven't yet > found any blockage or cause for the low pressure I'd been > experiencing (the tunnel fuel filter is completely clean, and there > don't seem to be any leaks or issues with any of the fuel > connections). I'm still going to check further (and perhaps try > bypassing a gascolator), but I seem to be quickly eliminating things > my low fuel pressure problem is not likely caused by, rather than > finding anything that it might be. One suspect (however unlikely) > still remains with the one way bypass valve around the boost pump, > since the boost pump seems to bring the pressure up, and the bypass > valve is only used with the engine pump. But the valve seems to be > cemented to the pump manifold with some sort of white compound, so I > haven't been easily able to remove it to check. Or perhaps the > engine pump itself could be a problem, though it's factory new, so > I'! m not sure how likely that is either. > > But while I have everything apart, I'm thinking of possibly > relocating my fuel flow transducer from the tunnel to somewhere after > the engine pump (I'm not sure if the transducer is the culprit > either, but putting it after the engine pump can't hurt, plus would > give me more accurate readings with the boost pump on). But where > are people putting it? The most convenient location in the engine > compartment would be to mount it to a bracket on the engine mount and > locate it right after the engine pump, on the way to the throttle > body. But if it's right after the engine pump, would I really be > accomplishing anything different than its current location right > after the boost pump? Would the engine pump cause similar problems > in transducer accuracy if the transducer is placed there? > > Thanks! > > Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: > 780-961-2213 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: FW: fuel flow at takeoff power
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
Like Lenny recommended, when you order cables I'd ask for an additional bit of throw. I had the same thing happen on my RV-14. Now, the one thing you can't afford is to not get full fuel delivery when needed, so I'd err on the side of hitting the full-rich stop, then see if going full lean always definitely kills the engine. If so, you should be good, but, what I did on mine is drill the arm and make sure I could hit both stops. On my RV-14 it isn't quite as pretty as my RV-10. On the -10, things are drilled so well that most controls go stop to stop and are almost exactly at the end of the slots on the quadrant. On the RV-14, the throw of the cables wasn't enough, so I have at least one that stops about 1/2" from the end of the slot when you pull it all the way back. But, they all go stop to stop on the far end. I did have to drill holes in arms to get it that way. Don't forget, you can also drill higher or lower holes in the quadrant levers where the clevis attaches. Tim On 2/16/2017 6:28 AM, David wrote: > > > I have been adjusting the mixture control cable attempting to make the > control hit both the full rich stop and the idle cutoff stop. It appears > that the cable (AS custom with Teflon cores) is about .050 inch shorter > in the throw than expected. The result is that the adjustment is close > but not exact. Although I can adjust the rich stop within .030 and the > idle cut off stop within .010, I still wonder whether fuel flow is > sufficient for takeoff power. Current fuel flow gauge says about 24 +- > .5 gph and idle cutoff requires that the control be fully aft. Anyone > have any numbers that they use to confirm proper fuel flow for takeoff. > The IO540 book seems to say that 24-25 gph is correct. I am now > determining whether to re make the hole in the mixture control arm or > order a new cable ($200); the cable cost is not the problem but the > labor (lots?) necessary to re install another cable. I have also been > told by Precision Air Motive (PAM) that sufficient fuel flow is certain > when leaning to peak at full power shows at least 100f rich of peak is > obtained. Any comments or suggestions? > > > David McNeill > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Avast logo > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
Just following up on this. Today I bought a 2nd NL starter. So I'm going to just put them on both planes. I'll have a 149-12LS and 149-12PM on the shelf as spares I guess. I asked Sky-Tec about the rebuild option. She said that is not an option any longer and went away when Hartzell bought Sky-Tec. They only have one option now. You can buy a new starter, from them ($499 vs $436 street price), then after you pull your old one send the receipt and old starter in, and get your credit. Current credit for the old is $154 for the LS or PM. So a delta of about $90. But, you have to pay shipping in both directions...for the new starter, and the old starter, and I'm assuming for the replaced starter. With shipping costs where it is, that $90 will get cut to almost nothing by 3 shipments at $25. So, by buying 2 from spruce, I got free shipping on the new ones, and now I'll have 2 that I can either shelf for spares, or sell, or whatever. BTW: The NL starter can only be wired (without modification) by using the single-wire method. I have both planes wired per Van's where you pull the jumper wire. Just wanted to note that there is that difference. I opted for the NL for the 14 primarily for expedience in getting it fixed, but also to add that 1lb to the engine. It will assist in keeping my CG forward for aerobatic envelope purposes. Tim On 2/16/2017 5:02 PM, Jesse Saint wrote: > Skytec has an option where you can send your starter to them for > "rebuild" and get a different model back. Cheaper than buying a new one. > I think the "rebuilt" is just a new unit. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > C: 352-427-0285 > F: 815-377-3694 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: A lot of advice and perhaps a little help
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
Jeff, I saw your email this last week about the whole airplane and medical situation. I'm not clear on the bottom line of the message though. Some people replied like you beat it all already, but from the reading I take it that you beat the immediate threat but now have just begun the path forward and have a chance, with no guarantees. If that's the case then I do wish you the best. You've already been in my prayers after reading about it, and that's about all I can do, but I wanted you to know. I remember talking to you at OSH, and emails over the years. You're a good guy, and I appreciate that there are people like you. I also appreciate that you shared your story with the list. Heck, I don't even have a clue if I myself could potentially have unknown medical conditions...most of us aren't aware until there is a significant symptom. But, your story does make me feel very good about the way I have lived my life. I have years of suffering ahead, if I live a long time, but it's financial suffering hopefully. Since 2003 or 2004 I've been involved in the RV community, and in 1999 and 2001 I had my children...not much longer than the RV scene. The choices I made...to fly places, and enjoy time with my girls, have made a significant negative impact on my future ability to retire and to enjoy financial security. I spend a lot of time worrying about that these days. But, knowing that days can be numbered gives a person a different perspective. I've always worried that if I didn't USE the time and enjoy the time with my kids, and have these experiences, I would end up being "that guy" who works hard until 65, retires, and then has a heart attack at 66. That's definitely not what I would feel as being as fulfilling as spending time with your family. So I chose the latter. At this point I've had almost too much fun and good fortune, and I wait for the shoe to drop. :) I'm very glad that you were part of the RV-10 community, and you followed your dreams of flying it, and that you had fun along the way. It is sad to see you sell the plane, but I do understand. I want to let you know that if you are ever around, for OSH or if I meet up with you somewhere else, I'll be happy to take you for a flight and let you have some fun. I am too far away to be of much use in helping finish the plane, but I would never deny you a flight if it becomes possible. I'm not sure if you intend to make it to OSH in the future, but the offer is open anytime. Thanks again for your note and I'll keep saying the prayers. Tim On 2/8/2017 10:43 PM, Jeff Carpenter wrote: > > > On November 30th I was entering the company IRA deposit... 5 pairs of > numbers... something that should take me a couple of minutes at most. > But, on that day, there seemed to be a strong glare in my office and > I couldn't make out the numbers. I twisted the paper, moved it around > in my field of vision... tried just one eye, then the other. 15 > minutes later the work was done and whatever problem I was having > with my vision seemed to have resolved itself. I went and got a big > glass of water thinking that I might be dehydrated. > > The next day, I noticed a similar vision problem. It didn't last as > long and I wasn't doing work that it interfered with... but it > worried me a little. Later that afternoon I met with a customer in my > office to discuss some new projects. He's a smart guy. He'd ask a > question. I'd start in to the answer and before I could finish the > sentence I could see that he was moving on to the next question... > and I was having a progressively harder time actually finishing the > sentences. Words were slightly out of order. I'd back up to get it > right and the words kept coming out a little wrong. He didn't seem to > notice. We finished our meeting and said our goodbyes. I immediately > went to my office manager to tell her that something was wrong with > me. She, with all the love and understanding of someone who has > worked for me for almost 25 years said "well, don't tell me... tell > you doctor... dork." > > So, the next morning I called my doctor on my way in to work. I > pulled off to the side of the road as the nurse was getting the > doctor to the phone. I explained to him what had happened the past > couple of days. He said "I'd like you turn around and drive straight > to the ER and get an MRI. This is the kind of stuff we don't mess > with." So, that's what I did. > > By noon the MRI was complete and the results were back. I had two > brain tumors. One rather small and one the size of a lemon. Something > about the nature of the tumors indicated that they didn't start in > the brain. So, a scan or two later it was determined that I have > stage 4 lung cancer (never smoked). My GP came to the hospital and > explained that this was the worst time of the week to discover > something like this. We wanted to assemble the "A" team and the "A" > team didn't work the weekends." So, I was released from the ER into > the care of my wife with a few strong prescriptions and a few days to > imagine all that might be before me. > > On Monday, as my GP was assembling his "A" team my parents were > assembling theirs. Unbeknownst to me, good friends of theirs had > just endowed the Chair of Oncology at The City of Hope. By Tuesday I > was in the care of some of the very best doctors in the world. By the > following Tuesday the large tumor was surgically removed and I was, > somehow, still able to walk and talk... but not drive and certainly > not fly. > > My prognosis, now, is "up in the air" so to speak. I've finished > radiation therapy which finished off anything that might have > remained of the large tumor and zapped the small one. I'm lucky, if > you can call anything about this "lucky" to have certain biomarkers > in my cancer that make it treatable with targeted therapy... which > has the potential to make this a chronically managed disease as > opposed to a death sentence. While targeted therapy drugs are a > godsend... giving me a shot at watching my kids grow up... they are > not allowed by the FAA. I'm going to have to sell my RV-10. That's > where I need your advice and, perhaps a little help. > > N410CF has the following squawks. In my current condition I am unable > to address most of them without help. That being said, what should I > make sure is taken care of before putting the plane on the market? > > The plane is not painted > > It is out of annual (would love a checklist for the annual) > > POH is incomplete > > Wheel pants and fairings are fit and finished except for the upper > intersection fairings > > The parking brake valve leaks > > The back up battery fuse has blown twice now > > The 1042G wire covers are not finish painted to match the interior > > Door locks are not installed > > AOA is not calibrated > > Needs a rudder trim tab > > An aileron trim tab wouldn't hurt > > 1 weeping rivet > > > I'd like to thank you all for the camaraderie over the 11 plus years > it took me to build it. It certainly would have been nice to be part > of the flying community a bit longer but I don't regret a minute of > the 4,874 hours I spent building it. > > Jeff Carpenter N410CF > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
Subject: Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
The LS and PM starters are permanent magnet, a little lighter than the NL and have the solenoid either on the right or left side of the motor. It is an issue with baffle fit. They draw a lot more current than the NL and have trouble cranking past the compression stroke if the battery is a little down or there is any resistance in the cable connections between battery and starter. I have one on my Mooney. Took some tracking down to replace an old starter relay that had resistance before it would crank reliably. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > > Tim, > > I'm not familiar with the 149-12PM, so I can't comment on the differences > between the fit. However I have the NL, and can't imagine that you would > have any fit issues. It tucks away into the engine nicely. Perhaps you > could have a scat tube, cable, or wire in the way, but I doubt it. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
That's kind of what I figured Phil. The photos all make it look much longer than the LS/PM versions. The LS and PM seem to be almost identical, with the solenoid on the opposite side of the main body. I may have some small wires like for my lightspeed ignition or something that I have to adjust but I don't expect anything major. It's just that going from a short/wide starter to a narrow/long one had me wondering if I was overlooking something. I guess I'll know in a couple weeks. I'll report back after I get them installed. Tim On 2/17/2017 9:26 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > > Tim, > > I'm not familiar with the 149-12PM, so I can't comment on the > differences between the fit. However I have the NL, and can't imagine > that you would have any fit issues. It tucks away into the engine > nicely. Perhaps you could have a scat tube, cable, or wire in the way, > but I doubt it. > > Here's some photos with a straight edge to help put things into perspective. > > For the record, I have a dual alt/battery setup with dual PC-680's on > the backend. I also have 9:1 pistons and a the NL starter doesn't even > blink at spinning the MT on a single battery. Plenty of torque off a > 680 for the 9:1 pistons. Your PC-925 and 8.5 pistons (IIRC) won't have > any issues at all. > > Phil > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
Subject: Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
I'm at the hangar now, trying to get this thing finished up, so I can give you any measurement you want. The back of the starter to the front of the sump is exactly 1". On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > That's kind of what I figured Phil. The photos all make it > look much longer than the LS/PM versions. The LS and PM > seem to be almost identical, with the solenoid on the opposite > side of the main body. I may have some small wires like for > my lightspeed ignition or something that I have to > adjust but I don't expect anything major. It's just that > going from a short/wide starter to a narrow/long one > had me wondering if I was overlooking something. I guess > I'll know in a couple weeks. > > I'll report back after I get them installed. > > Tim > > > On 2/17/2017 9:26 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > >> >> Tim, >> >> I'm not familiar with the 149-12PM, so I can't comment on the >> differences between the fit. However I have the NL, and can't imagine >> that you would have any fit issues. It tucks away into the engine >> nicely. Perhaps you could have a scat tube, cable, or wire in the way, >> but I doubt it. >> >> Here's some photos with a straight edge to help put things into >> perspective. >> >> For the record, I have a dual alt/battery setup with dual PC-680's on >> the backend. I also have 9:1 pistons and a the NL starter doesn't even >> blink at spinning the MT on a single battery. Plenty of torque off a >> 680 for the 9:1 pistons. Your PC-925 and 8.5 pistons (IIRC) won't have >> any issues at all. >> >> Phil >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
Okay, that does it. I'm swapping mine as well. I too have (2) 680s and it 'should' be enough power but it isn't for the LS. That first blade is always in question. Thanks all! On 2/16/2017 5:28 PM, Rene wrote: > > What is the ~price on the NL? How much weight does it add? I do not > have a problem with the starter working with the 925 batter, but I > think I am developing a dead (weak) spot and will be replacing my > starter this annual..unless the problem goes away when it gets > warmer and I fly more. > > Rene' > > 801-721-6080 > > *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Kevin Belue > *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:15 PM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter > > Tim, > > I had the 149-12PM on my RV10 and it would hardly turn it over. I have > 2 PC680 batteries, but that's hardly enough power. Your larger battery > must help there. I changed to the NL starter and it's great. It fits > just fine and has much more torque. I don't have any problems now > starting on one PC680. I think it's the best starter for the RV10. > > Kevin Belue > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Tim Olson > wrote: > > > > > Hey all, I'm thinking of replacing my starter on my RV-10 > with the NL starter. I think mine is the 149-12PM > right now. > > Can anyone who's either swapped for an NL or has an NL > comment on the fit of the starter in relation to all the > other stuff... i.e. is there any realistic chance that if I > swap starters its not going to fit well because of > some interference somewhere else? If not, I'll go ahead > and just order one. > > Tim > =================================== > -List" target="_blank" > rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > =================================== > FORUMS - > _blank" rel="noreferrer">http://forums.matronics.com > ========== > WIKI - > lank" rel="noreferrer">http://wiki.matronics.com > ========== > b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > =================================== > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
Ok Bill, I give you permission to put in your order now. :) I say that because I'm sure that by now mine have been packaged for shipping so you won't take one of mine. ;) You're absolutely right. It's the first blade that's the problem. On my RV-14 the LS works great, but the NL should work even better. It will turn the prop "bigly" to quote a random buffoon I keep seeing on tv. Tim On 2/17/2017 11:06 AM, Bill Watson wrote: > Okay, that does it. I'm swapping mine as well. > > I too have (2) 680s and it 'should' be enough power but it isn't for the > LS. That first blade is always in question. > > Thanks all! > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating
the fuel flow transducer
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
I relocated my Flowscan from the tunnel to between the pump and spider - it resolved the inaccurate reading problem. (The problem was actually pretty minor since I ran the boost pump for such limited amounts of times but now it's just dead nuts accurate). I simply cut the fuel line and inserted the flowscan unit wrapped in head shield. I secured the ends of the fuel line but the flowscan unit is floating so to speak. I just could see any reason to secure it further. Many hours later - all okay. Bill > But while I have everything apart, I'm thinking of possibly relocating my fuel flow transducer from the tunnel to somewhere after the engine pump (I'm not sure if the transducer is the culprit either, but putting it after the engine pump can't hurt, plus would give me more accurate readings with the boost pump on). But where are people putting it? The most convenient location in the engine compartment would be to mount it to a bracket on the engine mount and locate it right after the engine pump, on the way to the throttle body. But if it's right after the engine pump, would I really be accomplishing anything different than its current location right after the boost pump? Would the engine pump cause similar problems in transducer accuracy if the transducer is placed there? > > Thanks! --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
I guess I bought my (Vans) engine at just the right time, late 2009. Back then you could pull the unused LS off and Skytech would swap, no charge, for the NL. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466371#466371 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating
the
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
I've been think of how to reply, but now Tim wrote it for me! I agree with everything he said. My FF is in the stock position, is (by my choice) 2% high (conservative) with boost pump off, and a little more with it on. I also get low fuel pressure warnings approaching 10,000' in a full rich climb. But now that I'm past break-in, it's just a reminder that I forgot to lean! The poor engine is flooded with fuel at full rich and 10K'. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466373#466373 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing
From: "Gordon Anderson" <mregoan(at)hispeed.ch>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
Dan, The good fuel flow readings from your test with the electric pump are a nice health check for the boost pump but do not necessarily prove that system upstream of the mechanical pump is good. The mechanical pump has to draw fuel through the gascolator, tank selector valve, filter, non-return valve, hoses and elbows. The extra hoses and NR-valve mean that the mechanical pump sees a lower inlet pressure than the boost pump at the best of times. That and differences in pump design could mean that the boost pump deals fine with the gascolators etc. and any contamination in the system, but the mechanical pump cannot. If the mechanical pump inlet pressure is already in the critical range at idle, then a very small reduction in inlet pressure due to higher flows at high engine power can have a large negative effect on outlet pressure. First I would carefully check the system in the tunnel for any contamination. If that shows nothing, I would try to slightly pressurise the tank through the air vent (as you did to pressure test the tanks?) with the engine running and the boost pump off. If an increase in tank pressure by equivalent of a few inches of water suddenly resolves the fuel pressure problem, then you have to design some of the pressure drop out of your system, eg. relocate gascolators or find alternatives to any 90 elbows. Best of luck with chasing the problem! Gordon Anderson, Switzerland Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466380#466380 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Orre" <s51flyer(at)wi.rr.com>
Subject: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance
Date: Feb 17, 2017
Contacted Van's and they provided the finish tolerance. I'm familiar with different methods of static balancing, including measuring the weight of the trailing edge, etc., but I don't understand how to use the data they gave me. Finish documents say the rudder's balance limit is 30.8 in-lb's. This is probably simple, and I am over-thinking it. However, I'm not quite sure how to apply the 30.8 in-lb. number in measuring the rudder balance. Any insight is appreciated. Tks, Bob. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 8:33 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance kellym(at)aviating.com> The finish documents give the tolerance for rudder and other control surface balance. On 2/13/2017 6:22 PM, Outlook wrote: s51flyer(at)wi.rr.com> > > Has anyone that has added rudder trim had to add any weight to the rudder counter balance? I cut a tab into the rudder as some builders have done vs. adding a hinge to the trailing edge. The weight difference is probably similar, except for maybe a bit more epoxy work to seal up the rudder tab edges. > > Not sure how tight the tolerance is on the counter weight and whether it's anything to worry about. > > Thanks in advance. > > Bob Orre... > > Sent from my iPad > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
You are just measuring the trailing edge force when suspended on knife edge at hinge points. Force times the distance from hinge point to trailing edge gives you the inch pounds. On 2/17/2017 7:04 PM, Bob Orre wrote: > Contacted Van's and they provided the finish tolerance. I'm familiar > with different methods of static balancing, including measuring the > weight of the trailing edge, etc., but I don't understand how to use the > data they gave me. > > > Finish documents say the rudders balance limit is 30.8 in-lbs. This > is probably simple, and I am over-thinking it. However, Im not quite > sure how to apply the 30.8 in-lb. number in measuring the rudder balance. > > > Any insight is appreciated. > > > Tks, Bob > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 8:33 PM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance > > > > > > > The finish documents give the tolerance for rudder and other control > surface balance. > > > On 2/13/2017 6:22 PM, Outlook wrote: > > > > >> > >> Has anyone that has added rudder trim had to add any weight to the > rudder counter balance? I cut a tab into the rudder as some builders > have done vs. adding a hinge to the trailing edge. The weight > difference is probably similar, except for maybe a bit more epoxy work > to seal up the rudder tab edges. > >> > >> Not sure how tight the tolerance is on the counter weight and whether > it's anything to worry about. > >> > >> Thanks in advance. > >> > >> Bob Orre... > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > >> > >> > >> > >> > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > > http://forums.matronics.com > > http://wiki.matronics.com > > http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance
From: Outlook <s51flyer(at)wi.rr.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2017
Thanks, Kelly. I was over-thinking it. Bob... Sent from my iPad > On Feb 17, 2017, at 8:18 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > You are just measuring the trailing edge force when suspended on knife edge at hinge points. Force times the distance from hinge point to trailing edge gives you the inch pounds. > >> On 2/17/2017 7:04 PM, Bob Orre wrote: >> Contacted Van's and they provided the finish tolerance. I'm familiar >> with different methods of static balancing, including measuring the >> weight of the trailing edge, etc., but I don't understand how to use the >> data they gave me. >> >> >> >> Finish documents say the rudders balance limit is 30.8 in-lbs. This >> is probably simple, and I am over-thinking it. However, Im not quite >> sure how to apply the 30.8 in-lb. number in measuring the rudder balance. >> >> >> >> Any insight is appreciated. >> >> >> >> Tks, Bob >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen >> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 8:33 PM >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The finish documents give the tolerance for rudder and other control >> surface balance. >> >> >> >>> On 2/13/2017 6:22 PM, Outlook wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >>> Has anyone that has added rudder trim had to add any weight to the >> rudder counter balance? I cut a tab into the rudder as some builders >> have done vs. adding a hinge to the trailing edge. The weight >> difference is probably similar, except for maybe a bit more epoxy work >> to seal up the rudder tab edges. >> >> >>> Not sure how tight the tolerance is on the counter weight and whether >> it's anything to worry about. >> >> >>> Thanks in advance. >> >> >>> Bob Orre... >> >> >>> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> >> http://forums.matronics.com >> >> http://wiki.matronics.com >> >> http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: A lot of advice and perhaps a little help
Date: Feb 17, 2017
Hey all, looks like today I blundered and did a personal reply but replied to the list. Sorry, Jeff, if that wasn't ok. Anyway, I guess better to have it accidentally hit the list than to never send it. Sorry. Tim > On Feb 17, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > Jeff, > > Tim > > > > > > >> On 2/8/2017 10:43 PM, Jeff Carpenter wrote: >> >> >> >> Jeff Carpenter N410CF >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dan(at)syz.com
Subject: Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating
the fuel flow transducer
Date: Feb 18, 2017
Thanks, everyone, for more great advice. I have some good ideas now (and thanks for the photo, Dave!) as to where to move my fuel sender (red cube) - I just wish I would have put it there in the first place! It seems that low engine pump pressure on the takeoff roll and extended climb is relatively common - at least I'm not the only one experiencing it. Van's tech support wrote back to me as well to say they see similar issues with their factory RV-10 and encouraged me (as have many of you) to not worry about it too much if the engine pump can maintain pressure at cruise. What had me worried more than anything was when my engine quit during my runup. For all my flights up until now I'd had a GoPro in the cockpit which has proven invaluable to help analyze things after the fact. As luck would have it, this time I forgot the GoPro at home, so I have to rely on my much less reliable memory. But with that said... > On 2017-Feb-17, at 7:40 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > That said, this > all happened right after you tore some things apart, > which would leave areas of fuel lines with air in them. > I would expect unusual engine response until you get this > air out of the system. If you pull apart fuel lines, > you should disconnect the fuel lines after the fuel > pumps, and run the boost pump into a container for > a while and make sure to purge any air out of the lines, > before starting. That would minimize this a little. Tim, in and amongst all the other helpful things you said, I think you hit the nail on the head here, triggering a light bulb moment for me. I'm pretty sure I didn't purge the air out of the lines when I refuelled the plane after having cleaned out the gascolators the first time - it never entered my mind. When I started the plane, the initial priming with the boost pump would have cleared out most of the air from the lines to the tank I had selected at first, which is why it ran and acted normally initially. But now that your comments had me second guessing the exact sequence of events, I'm pretty sure that I changed tanks right when I turned on the boost pump in preparation for taxiing for takeoff. When I turned off the boost pump a few seconds later to see if the engine pump was working (likely before the air pocket in the lines would have found its way to the engine), I saw fuel pressure start dropping dramatically. I thought it was the fault of the engine pump pressure problem I've been chasing, but in retrospect, I'm thinking now that since I likely had just changed tanks, it was right about when the engine was getting a big gulp of air from the unpurged portion of line to the other tank. For some reason, since I wasn't suspecting the tank switch would have mattered (since both gascolator screens were now confirmed clean), I unintentionally discounted it as unrelated. At least that would perfectly explain why it died during my runup. And also serves as a classic example of my error in jumping to conclusions as to the cause, with prior conceptions of what I expected the problem to be. I was so fixated on judging the performance of the engine pump, I think I switched tanks without paying attention to how it would affect things. So with that said, now that I have everything in my tunnel pulled apart anyway, I'm going to recheck connections, look for blockages, etc. to ensure everything is as it's supposed to be. But I now have a probable explanation as to why the engine quit during my runup, enough so that I'm comfortable taking the plane up for its next flight if I find nothing else wrong (and it does the next runup OK, of course). And naturally, I'm going to run the boost pump into a container, from *both tanks* for awhile before I reconnect the line to the throttle body to make sure they're properly purged for next time. I've learned a few valuable lessons here: - never assume that a problem is necessarily caused by what you expect it to be caused by. - Running the boost pump while switching tanks was something I've always been told to do but never fully understood why it's important. Now I have a perfect example of why... and also know that leaving it running for a bit of time after switching tanks isn't such a bad idea either. - Running the boost pump before going full throttle also makes a lot of sense - we can anticipate the upcoming higher need for fuel, so that it's there before it's needed, unlike the engine pump having to try and play catch up when it's caught by surprise. - the people on the Matronics RV-10 list are an incredible resource :-) I may still bypass one of the wing gascolators so I can do an apples to apples comparison as to if (or to what degree) gascolators affect things. If nothing else was found to be a problem, prior to this I was reluctant to close things up and go flying without knowing if the problem was potentially fixed. But now that I have an explanation that makes sense to me, I'm certainly anxious to give it another go. Incidentally, Van's mentioned that they have a cooling shroud on the fuel pump of their RV-10 (as some of you do too) which seems to help with pressure problems in extended climbs. Since my climb where I saw fuel pressure dropping near 8000', I installed a blast tube to the fuel pump (like with the mags) as a quick and simple potential improvement (not as good as a shroud, but probably better than nothing). When I get the plane up next, I'll try another similar climb to see if it helps at all. If not, a shroud could be another improvement... though just running the boost pump in a higher altitude climb and leaning the mixture in the climb might be enough. Thanks again for all your advice, everyone! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating
the fuel flow transducer
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Feb 18, 2017
Dan reminded me that fuel issues can bite you when you least expect it. When I was a baby pilot learning all the intricacies of my airplane I had a mentor that shared his wealth of knowledge. One lesson was about fuel exhaustion. There are some of us that, for various reasons, run a tank dry. So, you fill up and put the plane away. The next flight you start up and taxi for takeoff. The big question is how far will you go before you exhaust the fuel in the lines? It's going to be different for different planes. I had an AA-1B at that time that would start up, taxi to the hold short line (it was close by) and make it through a quick run-up ..... only to die approximately 3/4 or so down the runway in the 'simulated departure'. What an eye opener, and an important lesson that has stayed with me for over 40 years. I've made that 'test' on every plane I've owned over the years. Short of taking Tim's advice to break the fuel lines at the servo and purge the lines, an extended ground run on each available tank is cheap insurance. Linn On 2/18/2017 2:28 AM, dan(at)syz.com wrote: Snip!!! > I've learned a few valuable lessons here: > > - never assume that a problem is necessarily caused by what you expect it to be caused by. > - Running the boost pump while switching tanks was something I've always been told to do but never fully understood why it's important. Now I have a perfect example of why... and also know that leaving it running for a bit of time after switching tanks isn't such a bad idea either. > - Running the boost pump before going full throttle also makes a lot of sense - we can anticipate the upcoming higher need for fuel, so that it's there before it's needed, unlike the engine pump having to try and play catch up when it's caught by surprise. > - the people on the Matronics RV-10 list are an incredible resource :-) Snip!!! > Thanks again for all your advice, everyone! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 19, 2017
From: David Halmos <dhmoose(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Auto Response: RV10-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 02/18/17
Thank you for your email! Unfortunately, I will checking email VERY sporadically but I will get back to you when I am able. Thanks, David ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: My panel from SteinAir
From: "whodja" <whodja(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 20, 2017
It's finished and should be shipping this week. Thank you Stein Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466440#466440 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0085_410.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: bdgillespie215(at)gmail.com
Date: Feb 20, 2017
Subject: Re: My panel from SteinAir
Looks pretty nice. Stein does really great work. I'm sure that you will be pleased. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 20, 2017, at 7:20 AM, whodja wrote: > > > It's finished and should be shipping this week. Thank you Stein > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466440#466440 > > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0085_410.jpg > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 21, 2017
Subject: GPS Antenna
I am afraid the antenna will not have a long life under the cowl due to heat. I am not opposed to it being on the glare shield, just would like it out of site if possible. Has anyone tried putting the GPS Antenna in the overhead console (I have Geoff's), between the doors? Will I get signal through the cabin top? -- Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Subject: GPS Antenna
Date: Feb 21, 2017
GTN-650 and Dynon GPS antennas on the glare shield, one on each side. Work perfectly. I wrap the white GTN-650 antenna with some dark cloth so that it does not reflect on the glass. No reason for them to not work in an overhead console but I vetoed such a console as an unneeded waste of headroom. Others may have different opinions. I share your concern with GPS antennas mounted under the cowl. Carl From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vernon Franklin Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 11:48 AM Subject: RV10-List: GPS Antenna I am afraid the antenna will not have a long life under the cowl due to heat. I am not opposed to it being on the glare shield, just would like it out of site if possible. Has anyone tried putting the GPS Antenna in the overhead console (I have Geoff's), between the doors? Will I get signal through the cabin top? -- Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com>
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna
Date: Feb 21, 2017
I=99ve taken considerable data for under cowl temperatures through all phases of flight and shut-down with a data logger. For the upper portion of the low pressure side of the cowling on the RV-10 the temperature is about 10 C rise over ambient for all phases except for shut down. Upon shut down the temperature rises to about +40 C rise for about 8 minutes followed by about a cool down back to ambient. For electronic systems this is not much of a thermal burden. That said, when I built my =9310 I didn=99t have the data for under cowl temperatures so instead I investigated GPS signal strength with the antennas mounted under the cabin top and hidden by my overhead console. I have dual garmin 430 W navigators so I took data for satellite received signal strength with one antenna positioned in the cabin looking up through the cabin top and one antenna outside the aircraft with an unobstructed view of the sky. There was absolutely no difference between the two systems. They both had the same number of satellites received and at the same signal level. After five years of flying I=99m totally satisfied that those GPS hockey puck antennas work perfectly well mounted inside the cabin looking up through the fiberglass. Bob Newman N541RV www.tcwtech.com From: Vernon Franklin Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 11:47 AM Subject: RV10-List: GPS Antenna I am afraid the antenna will not have a long life under the cowl due to heat. I am not opposed to it being on the glare shield, just would like it out of site if possible. Has anyone tried putting the GPS Antenna in the overhead console (I have Geoff's), between the doors? Will I get signal through the cabin top? -- Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna
From: "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com>
Date: Feb 21, 2017
I logged similar temps under the cowling. Probably not an issue for antennas, but those that decide to install lithium batteries there take note of those numbers. My temps also went up to around the same numbers during runup after a few minutes of taxiing around. My glareshield is two-component foam between two thin layers of fiberglass wrapped in black ultraleather. I carved out the foam from the bottom and put my WxWorx XM antenna puck there. It's not visible at all and it works great. It would most likely work fine with a GPS antenna too. Lenny rnewman(at)tcwtech.com wrote: > Ive taken considerable data for under cowl temperatures through all phases of flight and shut-down with a data logger. For the upper portion of the low pressure side of the cowling on the RV-10 the temperature is about 10 C rise over ambient for all phases except for shut down. Upon shut down the temperature rises to about +40 C rise for about 8 minutes followed by about a cool down back to ambient. For electronic systems this is not much of a thermal burden. > That said, when I built my 10 I didnt have the data for under cowl temperatures so instead I investigated GPS signal strength with the antennas mounted under the cabin top and hidden by my overhead console. I have dual garmin 430 W navigators so I took data for satellite received signal strength with one antenna positioned in the cabin looking up through the cabin top and one antenna outside the aircraft with an unobstructed view of the sky. There was absolutely no difference between the two systems. They both had the same number of satellites received and at the same signal level. > After five years of flying Im totally satisfied that those GPS hockey puck antennas work perfectly well mounted inside the cabin looking up through the fiberglass. > > Bob Newman > N541RV > www.tcwtech.com (http://www.tcwtech.com) > > > From: Vernon Franklin (vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com) > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 11:47 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com) > Subject: GPS Antenna > > > > > I am afraid the antenna will not have a long life under the cowl due to heat. > > I am not opposed to it being on the glare shield, just would like it out of site if possible. > Has anyone tried putting the GPS Antenna in the overhead console (I have Geoff's), between the doors? Will I get signal through the cabin top? > > > -- > Vernon Franklin -------- Lenny N311LZ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466462#466462 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna
From: "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 21, 2017
I have an under cowl gps antenna mounted on a bracket from engine mount to firewall on my rv6 with 550 hours and still going with no dropouts ever had. On the 10 I'm building I've put two gps antennae in the overhead one in each bay-- expecting similar results. -------- Dave Ford RV6 for sale RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466463#466463 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 21, 2017
From: <fgcobble(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna
just getting around to installing my G3X system in RV10 - given your study where do you recommend installing? 1) Mounted under fiberglass canopy - i assume over pilot and copilots heads or 2) under engine cowling? My understanding is the typical installation is outside on roof of canopy near the front. Thx for feedback ---- Bob-tcw wrote: > Ive taken considerable data for under cowl temperatures through all phases of flight and shut-down with a data logger. For the upper portion of the low pressure side of the cowling on the RV-10 the temperature is about 10 C rise over ambient for all phases except for shut down. Upon shut down the temperature rises to about +40 C rise for about 8 minutes followed by about a cool down back to ambient. For electronic systems this is not much of a thermal burden. > That said, when I built my 10 I didnt have the data for under cowl temperatures so instead I investigated GPS signal strength with the antennas mounted under the cabin top and hidden by my overhead console. I have dual garmin 430 W navigators so I took data for satellite received signal strength with one antenna positioned in the cabin looking up through the cabin top and one antenna outside the aircraft with an unobstructed view of the sky. There was absolutely no difference between the two systems. They both had the same number of satellites received and at the same signal level. > After five years of flying Im totally satisfied that those GPS hockey puck antennas work perfectly well mounted inside the cabin looking up through the fiberglass. > > Bob Newman > N541RV > www.tcwtech.com > > From: Vernon Franklin > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 11:47 AM > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: GPS Antenna > > I am afraid the antenna will not have a long life under the cowl due to heat. > > I am not opposed to it being on the glare shield, just would like it out of site if possible. > > > Has anyone tried putting the GPS Antenna in the overhead console (I have Geoff's), between the doors? Will I get signal through the cabin top? > > > -- > > Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Feb 21, 2017
The antenna for my 420W is external, on top of the tailcone, about 2 feet behind the baggage area bulkhead. Partly because, at the time, Garmin specified a certain minimum insertion loss (they had a mismatch in designed and actual antenna sensitivities after outsourcing the antenna). The loss could be introduced with an attenuator, or just a specified length of coax. Two things that have never been clear to me: (1) Do these antennas require a ground plane?, and (2) are they technically illegal for IFR use if not installed per the TSO'd documentation (which always shows them external)? -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466466#466466 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna
Date: Feb 21, 2017
> On 2017-Feb-21, at 9:47 AM, Vernon Franklin wrote: > > I am afraid the antenna will not have a long life under the cowl due to heat. > I am not opposed to it being on the glare shield, just would like it out of site if possible. > > Has anyone tried putting the GPS Antenna in the overhead console (I have Geoff's), between the doors? Will I get signal through the cabin top? I have two GPS antennas - one for a GTN 650 mounted externally above the cabin, and a backup "hockey puck" style antenna exactly where you mentioned (in the Aerosport Products console) that gets its signal through the cabin top fibreglass. Both work great - actually, the hockey puck antenna usually gets a signal quicker than the external GTN 650 antenna (though that's quite possibly because it isn't as critical as to how reliable a signal it gets, as long as it gets something within reason - the GTN 650 needs to have a reliable signal before it will even begin to deliver a position). If you have the overhead console anyway, as I do, I really can't see a reason not to put it there - it can't be seen, and at least in my case, works great. Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 21, 2017
I have a 925/680 in the back. Using the 925 with the LS starter, I measured 438 Amps and less than 9.5 V at starter. Changed to the NL last year due to having 4 years of the same intermittent starting difficulties. Starting amps dropped to 285 Amps and 11.1 V at starter. Much nicer. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466485#466485 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating
the
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 21, 2017
To check for any flow restrictions, you should see at least 42 gph if you unhook servo inlet line and run boost pump. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466487#466487 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: fuel flow at takeoff power
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 21, 2017
I am seeing 25-25.5 gph and 1240-1250 EGT's on takeoff from 663' elev. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466488#466488 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Georgia: 5 Person RV-10 Probable Cause
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 21, 2017
I fly and land near my aft CG limit all the time. It is sensitive, but easily controllable, even at night...IF you are sober. Their W&B gross wt calculation was 24 lbs under due to them figuring full tanks at 56 instead of 60 gallons. Not that it would have changed the outcome. The fuselage and engine are upside down, note oil cooler and step. Not much else recognizable. 3 DUI's and those 4 young people trusted him with their lives. Wow. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466489#466489 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Falcon pitot tube
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 21, 2017
I also have a Falcon from 2011. Will keep an eye on it. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466490#466490 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dlm <dlm34077(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 22, 2017
Subject: Falcon pitot tube
After my Falcon broke internally(?) I found a much better solution from Garmin , the GAP 26 includes heated pitot and AOA , approximately $300-500. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: Jacking the RV-10
Date: Feb 22, 2017
I'm building the wheel fairings and am at the part in the plans where I jack up the plane for alignment so the wheels are oriented as they are in flight (though they don't give specific recommendations on how to do this). I've built wing jacks, along with a socket that screws into the wing tiedown bolt holes that a well-supported bottle jack can fit into. I'm not too worried about the jack slipping out of place, and so far as I know, other RV-10 builders have jacked up their planes in this manner. But I just wanted to check before I do it that I'm not doing something stupid - the tiedown bolt hole locations are strong enough for this, aren't they? Obviously, the wings are strong enough to support the weight of the plane, but I just wanted to double check first, considering that when jacking the wings, all the force is in the one location of the tiedown bolt hole, instead of distributed more evenly along the wing as it is in flight. Any gotchas to be aware of before I do this, other than the obvious making sure the nose wheel is well chocked first, and raising both wings simultaneously to keep things relatively level? Also, the plans call for lateral and longitudinal levelling when fitting the fairings. When the plane sits on the ground, the level datum (door sill) is tipped a few degrees nose high - but they say to only jack up the plane until the main wheels are no more than 1/16" off the floor. I haven't done it yet, but in doing so, will that straighten out the lateral (pitch) axis sufficiently level as the weight is taken off the main gear legs? I can raise the nose wheel for lateral levelling if it's too nose low with the mains 1/16" off the floor, but if it's still nose high, the only way I could see to laterally level it would be to dig a hole for the nose gear :-) Thanks! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Jacking the RV-10
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Feb 22, 2017
Fine-tune the fore-aft leveling by adding/letting out air from the nose tire. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466523#466523 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Jacking the RV-10
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Feb 22, 2017
Nothing to worry about using the socket/bolt as a jack point. recently did that on an RV-9. I would put a large area washer between the wing and the socket to prevent a smiley from the socket .... since it's at an angle to the jack. When I did my wheel pants I jacked up the mains and used a scissor jack under the nosegear nut to level the door sill. The 1/16" isn't critical .... you just need to get the mains and the nose wheel off the ground to simulate level flight. Linn On 2/22/2017 7:52 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > I'm building the wheel fairings and am at the part in the plans where I jack up the plane for alignment so the wheels are oriented as they are in flight (though they don't give specific recommendations on how to do this). I've built wing jacks, along with a socket that screws into the wing tiedown bolt holes that a well-supported bottle jack can fit into. I'm not too worried about the jack slipping out of place, and so far as I know, other RV-10 builders have jacked up their planes in this manner. But I just wanted to check before I do it that I'm not doing something stupid - the tiedown bolt hole locations are strong enough for this, aren't they? Obviously, the wings are strong enough to support the weight of the plane, but I just wanted to double check first, considering that when jacking the wings, all the force is in the one location of the tiedown bolt hole, instead of distributed more evenly along the wing as it is in flight. > > Any gotchas to be aware of before I do this, other than the obvious making sure the nose wheel is well chocked first, and raising both wings simultaneously to keep things relatively level? > > Also, the plans call for lateral and longitudinal levelling when fitting the fairings. When the plane sits on the ground, the level datum (door sill) is tipped a few degrees nose high - but they say to only jack up the plane until the main wheels are no more than 1/16" off the floor. I haven't done it yet, but in doing so, will that straighten out the lateral (pitch) axis sufficiently level as the weight is taken off the main gear legs? I can raise the nose wheel for lateral levelling if it's too nose low with the mains 1/16" off the floor, but if it's still nose high, the only way I could see to laterally level it would be to dig a hole for the nose gear :-) > > Thanks! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Jacking the RV-10
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Feb 22, 2017
I jacked up the mains using jacks just inside the gear and used a scissors jack under the nose gear to find out where level was. Used cinder blocks and small bottle jack under the firewall (2x4 across the fuse) to level with all three wheels off the floor and did all three pants before putting back on the floor. Linn On 2/22/2017 8:18 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > Fine-tune the fore-aft leveling by adding/letting out air from the nose tire. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466523#466523 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 22, 2017
Subject: Vans RV-10 lawsuit dismissed
Good news. http://kitplanes2.com/blog/2017/02/lawsuit-against-vans-aircraft-dismissed/ Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 22, 2017
Subject: Re: Jacking the RV-10
See if you can't borrow a set of real aircraft jacks. You will need the plane in the air for a day or two, and you don't want to be relying on a jerry rigged jack. Carriage bolts with the round head work fine for jack points. I used the same jacks that I use to do retraction checks on my Mooney. I think you will be surprised how many aircraft owners have a set of jacks. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > I'm building the wheel fairings and am at the part in the plans where I > jack up the plane for alignment so the wheels are oriented as they are in > flight (though they don't give specific recommendations on how to do > this). I've built wing jacks, along with a socket that screws into the > wing tiedown bolt holes that a well-supported bottle jack can fit into. > I'm not too worried about the jack slipping out of place, and so far as I > know, other RV-10 builders have jacked up their planes in this manner. But > I just wanted to check before I do it that I'm not doing something stupid - > the tiedown bolt hole locations are strong enough for this, aren't they? > Obviously, the wings are strong enough to support the weight of the plane, > but I just wanted to double check first, considering that when jacking the > wings, all the force is in the one location of the tiedown bolt hole, > instead of distributed more evenly along the wing as it is in flight. > > Any gotchas to be aware of before I do this, other than the obvious making > sure the nose wheel is well chocked first, and raising both wings > simultaneously to keep things relatively level? > > Also, the plans call for lateral and longitudinal levelling when fitting > the fairings. When the plane sits on the ground, the level datum (door > sill) is tipped a few degrees nose high - but they say to only jack up the > plane until the main wheels are no more than 1/16" off the floor. I > haven't done it yet, but in doing so, will that straighten out the lateral > (pitch) axis sufficiently level as the weight is taken off the main gear > legs? I can raise the nose wheel for lateral levelling if it's too nose > low with the mains 1/16" off the floor, but if it's still nose high, the > only way I could see to laterally level it would be to dig a hole for the > nose gear :-) > > Thanks! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LEON EVERETT <leeverett(at)MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: Jacking the RV-10
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Is that a yearly fee? ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-rv10-list-server@matronic s.com> on behalf of Linn Walters Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 7:39:46 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Jacking the RV-10 I jacked up the mains using jacks just inside the gear and used a scissors jack under the nose gear to find out where level was. Used cinder blocks and small bottle jack under the firewall (2x4 across the fuse) to level with all three wheels off the floor and did all three pants before putting back on the floor. Linn On 2/22/2017 8:18 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > Fine-tune the fore-aft leveling by adding/letting out air from the nose t ire. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466523#466523 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Feb 22, 2017
Subject: Re: Jacking the RV-10
Van's recommended point for jacking up the plane is the tie downs. The lift in flight is over a bigger surface, but the forces are transferred through the spar to the fuselage. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad > On Feb 22, 2017, at 7:52 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > > I'm building the wheel fairings and am at the part in the plans where I jack up the plane for alignment so the wheels are oriented as they are in flight (though they don't give specific recommendations on how to do this). I've built wing jacks, along with a socket that screws into the wing tiedown bolt holes that a well-supported bottle jack can fit into. I'm not too worried about the jack slipping out of place, and so far as I know, other RV-10 builders have jacked up their planes in this manner. But I just wanted to check before I do it that I'm not doing something stupid - the tiedown bolt hole locations are strong enough for this, aren't they? Obviously, the wings are strong enough to support the weight of the plane, but I just wanted to double check first, considering that when jacking the wings, all the force is in the one location of the tiedown bolt hole, instead of distributed more evenly along the wing as it is in flight. > > Any gotchas to be aware of before I do this, other than the obvious making sure the nose wheel is well chocked first, and raising both wings simultaneously to keep things relatively level? > > Also, the plans call for lateral and longitudinal levelling when fitting the fairings. When the plane sits on the ground, the level datum (door sill) is tipped a few degrees nose high - but they say to only jack up the plane until the main wheels are no more than 1/16" off the floor. I haven't done it yet, but in doing so, will that straighten out the lateral (pitch) axis sufficiently level as the weight is taken off the main gear legs? I can raise the nose wheel for lateral levelling if it's too nose low with the mains 1/16" off the floor, but if it's still nose high, the only way I could see to laterally level it would be to dig a hole for the nose gear :-) > > Thanks! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Subject: Re: Vans RV-10 lawsuit dismissed
Does "dismissed" mean that it was withdrawn by the plaintiff, or was it not a ccepted by the court? Carlos Enviado do meu iPhone No dia 23/02/2017, =C3-s 01:36, Phillip Perry escre veu: > Good news. > > http://kitplanes2.com/blog/2017/02/lawsuit-against-vans-aircraft-dismissed / > > > > > Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Maib <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Subject: Re: Vans RV-10 lawsuit dismissed
Not accepted by the court. David Maib > On Feb 23, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > > Does "dismissed" mean that it was withdrawn by the plaintiff, or was it no t accepted by the court? > > Carlos > > Enviado do meu iPhone > > No dia 23/02/2017, =C3-s 01:36, Phillip Perry esc reveu: > >> Good news. >> >> http://kitplanes2.com/blog/2017/02/lawsuit-against-vans-aircraft-dismisse d/ >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Subject: Re: Vans RV-10 lawsuit dismissed
That's even better CT Enviado do meu iPhone No dia 23/02/2017, =C3-s 11:49, David Maib escreveu: > Not accepted by the court. > > David Maib > > >> On Feb 23, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: >> >> Does "dismissed" mean that it was withdrawn by the plaintiff, or was it n ot accepted by the court? >> >> Carlos >> >> Enviado do meu iPhone >> >> No dia 23/02/2017, =C3-s 01:36, Phillip Perry es creveu: >> >>> Good news. >>> >>> http://kitplanes2.com/blog/2017/02/lawsuit-against-vans-aircraft-dismiss ed/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Cockpit ceiling color
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Guys Normally colors are chosen by aesthetics reasons, and the color of the cockpit interior of your RV-10 is probably no exception. But aesthetics apart, thinking only of technical reasons, which is the best color for the bottom part of the cabin cover (i.e the cockpit ceiling)? Being it painted or with headliner, should it be preferably dark, even black, or in the contrary, should it be a light color, even white? Thanks Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cockpit ceiling color
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2017
I can tell you that if you plan to do photos out the windows, the darker the better. EVERYTHING in the cockpit that is light in color will add glare on the windows. You can cut some of it by using a circular polarizing filter. We also carry a black towel to lay over our clothes and seat belts and things that are reflecting. So if photos are a plan, the darker the better. Tim On 2/23/2017 10:59 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote: > Guys > > > Normally colors are chosen by aesthetics reasons, and the color of the > cockpit interior of your RV-10 is probably no exception. > > > But aesthetics apart, thinking only of technical reasons, which is the > best color for the bottom part of the cabin cover (i.e the cockpit ceiling)? > > Being it painted or with headliner, should it be preferably dark, even > black, or in the contrary, should it be a light color, even white? > > > Thanks > > Carlos > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Subject: One last question - almost
I'm about to close up this aft deck area to prep for the inspection. Before I do, I'm just going over everything one last time. For those if you using the overhead console from Geoff, have any of you had e xperience with using an undersized hole in the bulkhead? Just curious how t he airflow is... I punched a 1" hole inside the 2" scat connector. I just couldn't bring mys elf to knocking a 2" hole in that bulkhead. I also drilled a 1/8" drain hole to let any water drain out. I'll attach a photo so you can see. I'm just curious if anyone else has done something similar with a 1" hole an d I'm most curious about how happy you are with he airflow. Thanks, Phil Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cockpit ceiling color
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Summers here can be hot, so I avoided dark colors as much as possible. Spray painted the top a "light leather" color I thought would match the eventual seats. Turned out to be much lighter, not a great match. Plane flies the same regardless! I have not noticed the reflections Tim mentioned but I'm not a photographer. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466551#466551 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Subject: Re: One last question - almost
Phil, I used two 1" holes with 2"X1" bulkhead adapters. The airflow seems very good to me. Shannon On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > I'm about to close up this aft deck area to prep for the inspection. > Before I do, I'm just going over everything one last time. > > For those if you using the overhead console from Geoff, have any of you > had experience with using an undersized hole in the bulkhead? Just > curious how the airflow is... > > I punched a 1" hole inside the 2" scat connector. I just couldn't bring > myself to knocking a 2" hole in that bulkhead. > > I also drilled a 1/8" drain hole to let any water drain out. I'll attach > a photo so you can see. > > I'm just curious if anyone else has done something similar with a 1" hole > and I'm most curious about how happy you are with he airflow. > > Thanks, > Phil > > > Sent from my iPhone > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: CANADIAN Builders - Change in MD-RA Inspections
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Hi I received word today that MD-RA will now allow builders to elect to whether or not they want to be inspected under CARS 549.01 or the Exemption to 549.01. I expect something to this effect to be on their website *soon*. For Canadian kit builders, the only big difference is 549.01 does not require installation of a gascolator - something that adds no earthly value to a low wing aircraft equipped with tank drains and in line fuel filters. The only other differences that I am aware of is small changes to the data plate and wording of various placards. When I originally had my -10 inspected, I had to install two gascolators - one in each wing root as I didn't want to put a gas filled aluminum vessel on the firewall. This was purely a safety issue in case of a FWF fire. To have the drain accessible, it would have been near my exhaust stacks as well as the fuse bottom skin. When I swapped out my Subie engine to an IO540, Transport Canada (not MD-RA) used CARS 549.01 as the inspection standard and so I didn't need a gascolator! As the wing roots were now "free", I moved my fuel filters to the wing root where they are infinitely more accessible for from inspection and cleaning. Parenthetically, the MD-RA requirement was that the gascolator be mounted in the lowest point of the fuel system. In a -10, that would mean installation below the tank, external to the wing. They didn't require this but that is the only way to comply with the rule! Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466553#466553 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: CANADIAN Builders - MD-RA no longer requires whisky compass
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Hi *** Please note whisky is spelt correctly (as is the word spelt) *** [Laughing] Another change from MD-RA is that they will no longer require a whisky compass to be installed provided that there is a battery backup for the EFIS screens providing directional data. Check with MD-RA to confirm your installation conforms to their requirements. If so you can avoid installing the whisky compass (if desired). Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466554#466554 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Vinyl lettering
From: "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Interested in a recommendation of a source for 12 inch vinyl lettering. From what I've seen there are variations in obtaining the final product either individual letters or complete mask and some don't offer shadowing or slant. Looking for a source that someone has ordered from and is happy with the results . -------- Dave Ford RV6 for sale RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466555#466555 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Luiz Ferreira <luizferreira(at)me.com>
Subject: Re: Cockpit ceiling color
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Hi take a look on this project, very nice interior. https://www.facebook.com/pg/sfsportaviation/photos/?tab=album&album_id=19457 6880972597 Luiz -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Turner Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 1:20 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Cockpit ceiling color Summers here can be hot, so I avoided dark colors as much as possible. Spray painted the top a "light leather" color I thought would match the eventual seats. Turned out to be much lighter, not a great match. Plane flies the same regardless! I have not noticed the reflections Tim mentioned but I'm not a photographer. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466551#466551 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: P Reid <rv10flyer(at)live.com>
Subject: Vinyl lettering
Date: Feb 24, 2017
I spoke with Jeff carpenter and he recommended http://www.eastvalebanners.com/ Pascal -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rvdave Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 2:38 PM Subject: RV10-List: Vinyl lettering Interested in a recommendation of a source for 12 inch vinyl lettering. From what I've seen there are variations in obtaining the final product either individual letters or complete mask and some don't offer shadowing or slant. Looking for a source that someone has ordered from and is happy with the results . -------- Dave Ford RV6 for sale RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466555#466555 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Vinyl lettering
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Regardless of where you get the lettering, make sure you specify 12 TALL letters. I ordered some quite a while ago and the folks assumed it was for a boat and made them 12 long (left to right). Took a few tries to get them to understand what I needed. Marcus On Feb 23, 2017, at 7:42 PM, P Reid wrote: I spoke with Jeff carpenter and he recommended http://www.eastvalebanners.com/ Pascal -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rvdave Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 2:38 PM Subject: RV10-List: Vinyl lettering Interested in a recommendation of a source for 12 inch vinyl lettering. From what I've seen there are variations in obtaining the final product either individual letters or complete mask and some don't offer shadowing or slant. Looking for a source that someone has ordered from and is happy with the results . -------- Dave Ford RV6 for sale RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466555#466555 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cockpit ceiling color
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Mine is medium gray. No problems with our non-professional pics. I'd say that if one is into aerial photography, a high-wing with open doors or windows would be best. My glareshield and panel is flat black and I like it that way. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466560#466560 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Vans RV-10 lawsuit dismissed
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Van's can't talk about it. I bet it was settled out of court and some money was paid by Van's and EI. No wonder it cost $200k+ now. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466561#466561 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Subject: Re: Vans RV-10 lawsuit dismissed
I don't think it was settled. I don't think it ever saw the light of day. I t might have been, but I don't get that vibe from their published bulletin w hen it says they case was dismissed for not having merit. https://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/letters/LawSuit_Dismissed_Letter.pdf Vans is wise not to speak on the case because all they can do it accidentall y say something the wrong way and then they're back in another lawsuit. The way I read it, it was dismissed because it lacked merit. Those are pretty bold words for someone who has settled. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 23, 2017, at 7:13 PM, rv10flyer wrote: > > > Van's can't talk about it. I bet it was settled out of court and some mone y was paid by Van's and EI. No wonder it cost $200k+ now. > > -------- > Wayne G. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466561#466561 > > > > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2017
Subject: Re: Vans RV-10 lawsuit dismissed
Here's a timeline and some more info: https://webportal.courts.oregon.gov/portal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Phillip Perry wrote: > I don't think it was settled. I don't think it ever saw the light of > day. It might have been, but I don't get that vibe from their published > bulletin when it says they case was dismissed for not having merit. > > https://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/letters/LawSuit_Dismissed_Letter.pdf > > Vans is wise not to speak on the case because all they can do it > accidentally say something the wrong way and then they're back in another > lawsuit. > > The way I read it, it was dismissed because it lacked merit. > > Those are pretty bold words for someone who has settled. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 23, 2017, at 7:13 PM, rv10flyer wrote: > > > Van's can't talk about it. I bet it was settled out of court and some > money was paid by Van's and EI. No wonder it cost $200k+ now. > > -------- > Wayne G. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466561#466561 > > > ====================================================; > http://www.matron====================================================; - > MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - > http://www.matro================================================ > > > <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Deschamps" <deschamps(at)absamail.co.za>
Subject: RE: RV10-List Digest: Fuel flow problem
Date: Feb 24, 2017
Hi Dan, I had the same problem when flying above 9000 ft. My fuel system had the Andair pump and filter in the tunnel with one gascolator on the engine side of the firewall. I removed the gascolator and this solved my problem. There is too much resistance to the fuel flow with gascolator and fuel filter installed. Suggest that you remove the screen in one of the gascolators and with the fuel selector on that side do a flight test to see if this will also solve your problem. Ed Deschamps -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV10-List Digest Server Sent: 16 February 2017 10:03 AM Subject: RV10-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 02/15/17 * ================================================= Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive ================================================= Today's complete RV10-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the RV10-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 17-02-15&Archive=RV10 Text Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 2017-02-15&Archive=RV10 =============================================== EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive =============================================== ---------------------------------------------------------- RV10-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 02/15/17: 5 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:13 PM - Champion Slick Magneto Maintenance Kits - new to me (Bill Watson) 2. 03:01 PM - Re: Champion Slick Magneto Maintenance Kits - new to me (Kevin Belue) 3. 06:05 PM - RV10 Parts available (Richard Gurley) 4. 06:39 PM - Re: RV10 Parts available (gulf) 5. 10:16 PM - Fuel pressure problems continuing (Dan Charrois) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> Subject: RV10-List: Champion Slick Magneto Maintenance Kits - new to me I was in the process of buying a couple of rebuilt (not overhauled) Slick Mags to replace my 800+ hour Mags. Aircraft Spruce carries them (along with new and overhauled). However, my last search in ACS turned up Champion Slick Magneto Maintenance Kits as shown here: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/slickmagmaintkit.php?clickkey =4368 http://www.championaerospace.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/FINAL-Magneto-Ki t-Flyer.pdf The hadn't noticed this as an option before but looks very attractive. I've already fooled around with mine to comply with an earlier Service Directive and would love to do the work myself if I can bring the Mags back up to the rebuilt standard. Is anyone familiar with these kits? Do they contain what is needed to bring used mags up to the rebuilt standard? All input welcome. Bill "Ready for FIKI season to end" Watson --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ From: Kevin Belue <kdb.rv10(at)gmail.com> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Champion Slick Magneto Maintenance Kits - new to me Personally, I don't like to take chances with mag problems. I've had 2 occurrences of near engine out experiences with mags because I didn't keep a close check on mag condition. Now, I buy overhauled mags from a reputable source and have a complete mag check at 500 hrs. On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Bill Watson wrote: > > I was in the process of buying a couple of rebuilt (not overhauled) > Slick Mags to replace my 800+ hour Mags. Aircraft Spruce carries them > (along with new and overhauled). > > However, my last search in ACS turned up Champion Slick Magneto > Maintenance Kits as shown here: > https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/slickmagmaint > kit.php?clickkey=4368 > http://www.championaerospace.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ > FINAL-Magneto-Kit-Flyer.pdf > > The hadn't noticed this as an option before but looks very attractive. > I've already fooled around with mine to comply with an earlier Service > Directive and would love to do the work myself if I can bring the Mags > back up to the rebuilt standard. > > Is anyone familiar with these kits? Do they contain what is needed to > bring used mags up to the rebuilt standard? All input welcome. > > Bill "Ready for FIKI season to end" Watson > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ From: "Richard Gurley" <rngurley(at)att.net> Subject: RV10-List: RV10 Parts available I have machined two excess static ports and a tail light adapter available for anyone who needs them. These are machined parts that are commercially available from Cleveland Tools - but the only payment I would need is for shipping. Please let me know off line if you would like them. Dick ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ From: "gulf" <fgcobble(at)roadrunner.com> Subject: RE: RV10-List: RV10 Parts available Sounds like a good opportunity to me - what do you need me to do? Francis Gularte, Ventura, CA #40888 From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Gurley Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 6:01 PM Subject: RV10-List: RV10 Parts available I have machined two excess static ports and a tail light adapter available for anyone who needs them. These are machined parts that are commercially available from Cleveland Tools - but the only payment I would need is for shipping. Please let me know off line if you would like them. Dick ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com> Subject: RV10-List: Fuel pressure problems continuing Hi everyone. My RV-10 has 9 hours of flight time so far with a factory new Lycoming IO-540 D4A5. On the last flight I did a couple of weeks ago, I tried a full rich climb to 10000', but ended up with my fuel pressure dropping down to around 11 psi when I got to 8700', at which point I turned on the boost pump and got the pressure back up to around 20 psi. Back down at a lower altitude, I tried turning off the boost pump, and the engine pump maintained pressure at 22 psi. But something was clearly not right, and since I was pretty much at the right time to do an oil and oil filter change anyway, thought it was a good time to do the equivalent of an "annual" to make sure everything was still looking good, and try and sort out the problem. Looking at my logs from past flights, typically my fuel pressure with the engine pump has been about 20-23 psi at 6000', 21 gph (full rich). I have typically seen higher pressures on the ground (27-29 psi) at lower RPMs and fuel flows. My fuel system is pretty much stock Van's, except I have an Andair fuel selector with an extension so it's lower in the tunnel, and I have gascolators in the wing roots (here in Canada, we require them). The fuel pump, filter, and fuel flow transducer (red cube) are all in the tunnel, as per plans. I thought I'd start with looking at the gascolator screens, since they're the easiest to get to, and being the first filters from the tanks to the engine, likely to collect the most. And I thought I hit the jackpot - both screens had some sort of lint buildup in them. I thought I'd kept the tanks clean while constructing, but guess it wasn't as good as I thought. So I cleaned them up figuring I found the problem (assuming that since they caught debris, likely there wasn't anything blocking things further down the line), changed the oil and filter, put things back together and figured I'd go flying. But in doing my runup, after a few minutes when the engine was getting warm and running at relatively low RPMs, I turned the boost pump on for a few seconds and then back off. When I turned it off, I saw the pressure dropping slowly. It got down to around 13 psi. I tried advancing the throttle a bit to see if maybe the engine was running too slow to provide enough fuel pressure, and the engine promptly died. No sputtering or anything - just quit, like I pulled the mixture to ICO and that's what I wanted it to do. It's not done that before. Obviously, at this point I wasn't going flying until I could figure out what was wrong. I managed to restart the engine (after a bit of effort - the engine had warmed up a bit, and I'm still sorting out the best way to do that). I couldn't get it to die again in the runup, so I decided to do a few high speed taxis/aborted takeoffs (fortunately, I'm at a quiet airport). Normally when I take off, I use the boost pump - this time I purposely left it off to see how the engine pump handled things on its own. I did three, and every time when I brought the engine up to full power and started a takeoff roll, the fuel pressure dropped significantly. Twice down to 12 or 13 psi. When I throttled back, the pressure came back up again. And this was tested on both left and right tanks - both behaved the same. So back to the drawing board, assuming there is still a blockage or restriction somewhere. I re-removed the gascolator screens again in case there was further contamination, but they look clean.. as do the fuel strainers that go into the tanks. Tomorrow, the plan is to get into the tunnel to check the fuel filter there (not looking forward to that - I'm going to have to remove a bunch of stuff to get into there, and had thought that since the gascolator screens had caught debris, the one in the tunnel likely will be fine). Nevertheless, it looks like I'm going to have to inspect the whole fuel system with a fine toothed comb to try and find if there's a blockage or something. I don't think there are any kinks in the lines - they were all bent with a tube bender and looked OK when I installed them, but I'll be taking another close look of course. While I have everything apart, if anyone has any ideas of what to check, I'd greatly appreciate them - I want to make sure I'm as thorough as possible, and don't want to close things up only to realize later I should have checked something else out while I was in there. The engine (and presumably fuel pump) were new from Lycoming, though they sat for about 1.5 years with preservative oil. How likely is it that the fuel pump itself might be the problem? The boost pump manages to bring my pressure back up to where it's supposed to be, but considering its design is different, it might be more tolerant to a fuel system's quirks. Thanks for any help or advice! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2017
Subject: Break model.
Guys, Need help. Break failure at run up area. Need the wheel and caliper model to get o ring and pads. Thanks a bunch. Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Break model.
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2017
Hi Rob, If you are using stock Cleveland, then this is it: Brake Assembly 30-59E Brake Pads 66-112 Rivets 105-2 Disc part number RA164-07500 For Rapco version Wheel Assembly is 40-59A For caliper o-rings if you can go Viton, do it: The Viton o-rings are M83248/1-224 V-75 Hope that helps you out! Tim On 2/24/2017 10:07 AM, Rob Kermanj wrote: > > Guys, > > Need help. Break failure at run up area. Need the wheel and caliper model to get o ring and pads. Thanks a bunch. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Home <bdgillespie215(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2017
Subject: Re: Break model.
Not sure if this is what you are looking for.... had this noted in my POH. Main Brakes: 30-59E assy Torque 75-80 in-lb dry Linings: Cleveland 66-112 Rivets: 105-2 Disc: 164-07500 Fluid: Aeroshell Mil-H-5606G Sent from my iPad > On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:07 AM, Rob Kermanj wrote: > > > Guys, > > Need help. Break failure at run up area. Need the wheel and caliper model to get o ring and pads. Thanks a bunch. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2017
Subject: Re: Break model.
Thank you! On my way to ABQ to pick up the parts. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Home wrote: > > > Not sure if this is what you are looking for.... had this noted in my POH. > > Main Brakes: 30-59E assy Torque 75-80 in-lb dry Linings: Cleveland 66-112 Rivets: 105-2 Disc: 164-07500 Fluid: Aeroshell Mil-H-5606G > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:07 AM, Rob Kermanj wrote: >> >> >> Guys, >> >> Need help. Break failure at run up area. Need the wheel and caliper model to get o ring and pads. Thanks a bunch. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Miller <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Break model.
Date: Feb 24, 2017
Hope this helps! grumpy Cleveland, Wheel 40-59A; Disc 164-07500 Grease seals: 153-00300 outer; 153-00400 inner. Snap ring 155-00100. Lining 066-11200. Rivet 105-00200. Dust Sheld 157-00900; Wheel bolts AN5-34A; MS21044-N5 nuts Timken Bearing LM274949-2-629, cotter pin AN 380-3-8. Torque halves 150in lb dry > On Feb 24, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Rob Kermanj wrote: > > > Thank you! On my way to ABQ to pick up the parts. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Home wrote: >> >> >> Not sure if this is what you are looking for.... had this noted in my POH. >> >> Main Brakes: 30-59E assy Torque 75-80 in-lb dry =EF=82=B7 Linings: Cleveland 66-112 =EF=82=B7 Rivets: 105-2 Disc: 164-07500 =EF=82=B7 Fluid: Aeroshell Mil-H-5606G >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:07 AM, Rob Kermanj wrote: >>> >>> >>> Guys, >>> >>> Need help. Break failure at run up area. Need the wheel and caliper model to get o ring and pads. Thanks a bunch. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Break model.
From: Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2017
Thanks guys for the quick help. On my way to abq to get the parts. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 24, 2017, at 10:01 AM, John Miller wrote: > > Hope this helps! > > grumpy > Cleveland, Wheel 40-59A; Disc 164-07500 > > Grease seals: 153-00300 outer; 153-00400 inner. Snap ring 155-00100. Linin g 066-11200. Rivet 105-00200. Dust Sheld 157-00900; Wheel bolts AN5-34A; M S21044-N5 nuts > > Timken Bearing LM274949-2-629, cotter pin AN 380-3-8. Torque halves 150in l b dry > > >> On Feb 24, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Rob Kermanj wrote: >> >> >> Thank you! On my way to ABQ to pick up the parts. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Home wrote: >>> >>> >>> Not sure if this is what you are looking for.... had this noted in my PO H. >>> >>> Main Brakes: 30-59E assy Torque 75-80 in-lb dry =EF=82=B7 Linings: Cleve land 66-112 =EF=82=B7 Rivets: 105-2 Disc: 164-07500 =EF=82=B7 Fluid: A eroshell Mil-H-5606G >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:07 AM, Rob Kermanj wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Guys, >>>> >>>> Need help. Break failure at run up area. Need the wheel and caliper mo del to get o ring and pads. Thanks a bunch. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= >> >> >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2017
Subject: Re: Cleveland Brake parts.
Just revising the subject line to give a break to anyone searching the archives for Cleveland brake information. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Rob Kermanj wrote: > Thanks guys for the quick help. On my way to abq to get the parts. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 24, 2017, at 10:01 AM, John Miller wrote: > > Hope this helps! > > grumpy > Cleveland, Wheel 40-59A; Disc 164-07500 > Grease seals: 153-00300 outer; 153-00400 inner. Snap ring 155-00100. > Lining 066-11200. Rivet 105-00200. Dust Shield 157-00900; Wheel bolts > AN5-34A; MS21044-N5 nuts > > Timken Bearing LM274949-2-629, cotter pin AN 380-3-8. Torque halves 150in > lb dry > > On Feb 24, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Rob Kermanj wrote: > > > Thank you! On my way to ABQ to pick up the parts. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Home wrote: > > > Not sure if this is what you are looking for.... had this noted in my POH . > > Main Brakes: 30-59E assy Torque 75-80 in-lb dry =EF=82=B7 Linings: Clevel and > 66-112 =EF=82=B7 Rivets: 105-2 Disc: 164-07500 =EF=82=B7 Fluid: Aer oshell Mil-H-5606G > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:07 AM, Rob Kermanj wrote: > > > Guys, > > Need help. Break failure at run up area. Need the wheel and caliper mode l > to get o ring and pads. Thanks a bunch. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navi============== ================ > ======================== =======================nbsp; - NEW > MATRONICS LIST WI================== ========= > ========================s p;  "htt > p://www.matronics.com/contribution" class="">http://www.matronics. > com/======================= ===================== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Vinyl lettering
From: "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 24, 2017
I think I found one that I'm going to work with that has a pretty nice interactive website with a lot of flexibility and a reasonably priced product . Doityourselflettering.com , we'll see how it works out. -------- Dave Ford RV6 for sale RV10 building Cadillac, MI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466616#466616 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Break model.
From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 25, 2017
I'd like to upgrade to Matco someday, as Van's chose a marginally sized brake system. -------- Wayne G. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466629#466629 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: fuel servo mounting
Date: Feb 25, 2017
I try and learn from 'oh crap' issues my friends have had. Today, my RV-9 buddy had one. He probably has < 30 hours in phase 1 and went flying this morning. About a 60 mile round trip and on the way home, subtle engine surges followed by rough running and fuel smell. Dead sticked into home base, and put the plane away. Cowl removed. Failure easy to diagnose. Two nuts that should be holding the fuel servo tightly to the engine were laying in the lower cowl, and the other two were loose. Real loose. No torque seal in evidence, so the nuts may not have been torqued down to start with. So, I looked at my install (not flying yet and untorqued) and, like his, I have nuts holding the servo on, but no locking nuts, lock washers or safety wire. This begs the question ..... what have others done when attaching the fuel servo?? I've already had my 3 'oh craps' and don't want to risk another!!!! Linn ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Belue <kdb.rv10(at)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 25, 2017
Subject: Re: fuel servo mounting
I use loctite and 2 nuts on each stud. On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Linn Walters wrote: > > I try and learn from 'oh crap' issues my friends have had. Today, my RV-9 > buddy had one. He probably has < 30 hours in phase 1 and went flying this > morning. About a 60 mile round trip and on the way home, subtle engine > surges followed by rough running and fuel smell. Dead sticked into home > base, and put the plane away. Cowl removed. Failure easy to diagnose. > Two nuts that should be holding the fuel servo tightly to the engine were > laying in the lower cowl, and the other two were loose. Real loose. No > torque seal in evidence, so the nuts may not have been torqued down to > start with. > > So, I looked at my install (not flying yet and untorqued) and, like his, I > have nuts holding the servo on, but no locking nuts, lock washers or safety > wire. This begs the question ..... what have others done when attaching > the fuel servo?? > I've already had my 3 'oh craps' and don't want to risk another!!!! > Linn > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: fuel servo mounting
From: "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com>
Date: Feb 25, 2017
Hey Linn, I used a flat washer and a star washer with blue Loctite. So far in 275 hours they haven't moved. Nordlock washers might work great here. I first saw these on my Matco brakes, then someone posted this impressive video: http://www.nord-lock.com/bolted/watch-the-new-junker-test-video-here/ Don't forget to safety wire the bolts holding the FAB mounting plate to the fuel servo. Glad your buddy is ok. Lenny Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466646#466646 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: fuel servo mounting
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Feb 25, 2017
Thanks Lenny ..... I had forgotten about the Nordlock washers!!! On 2/25/2017 5:12 PM, Lenny Iszak wrote: > > Hey Linn, > > I used a flat washer and a star washer with blue Loctite. So far in 275 hours they haven't moved. > Nordlock washers might work great here. I first saw these on my Matco brakes, then someone posted this impressive video: > > http://www.nord-lock.com/bolted/watch-the-new-junker-test-video-here/ > > Don't forget to safety wire the bolts holding the FAB mounting plate to the fuel servo. > > Glad your buddy is ok. > > Lenny > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466646#466646 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rick Lark" <jrlark(at)bmts.com>
Subject: fuel servo mounting
Date: Feb 25, 2017
Linn, my IO-540 has star washers underneath the 4 bolts heads. Haven't checked the torque but I will now.....:-) Rick -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn Walters Sent: February 25, 2017 3:53 PM Subject: RV10-List: fuel servo mounting I try and learn from 'oh crap' issues my friends have had. Today, my RV-9 buddy had one. He probably has < 30 hours in phase 1 and went flying this morning. About a 60 mile round trip and on the way home, subtle engine surges followed by rough running and fuel smell. Dead sticked into home base, and put the plane away. Cowl removed. Failure easy to diagnose. Two nuts that should be holding the fuel servo tightly to the engine were laying in the lower cowl, and the other two were loose. Real loose. No torque seal in evidence, so the nuts may not have been torqued down to start with. So, I looked at my install (not flying yet and untorqued) and, like his, I have nuts holding the servo on, but no locking nuts, lock washers or safety wire. This begs the question ..... what have others done when attaching the fuel servo?? I've already had my 3 'oh craps' and don't want to risk another!!!! Linn ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Lewis <TimRVator(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Seeking two documents: PC-215-1A (Narrow Deck parts manual,
IO-540), 60294-7-14 (Lycoming overhaul manual)
Date: Feb 27, 2017
It turns out my narrow deck IO-540 parts manual and Lycoming overhaul manual are out of date, and it appears Lycoming won't sell them individually. Does anybody know of a pdf or hard copy source, or does anybody have a pdf to share? I'm looking for: - IO-540 narrow deck parts manual, PC-215-1A, revision dated Aug 2010 - Overhaul Manual, 60294-7-14, revision dated Jul 2011. Thanks, Tim -- Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA) A&P RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold RV-10 N31TD -- 850 hrs ________________________________________________________________________________
From: bdgillespie215(at)gmail.com
Date: Feb 27, 2017
Subject: Re: Seeking two documents: PC-215-1A (Narrow Deck parts manual,
IO-540), 60294-7-14 (Lycoming overhaul manual) If you locate a PDF copy I would be interested as well. I checked mine and they are both older copies as well... Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 27, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Tim Lewis wrote: > > > It turns out my narrow deck IO-540 parts manual and Lycoming overhaul manual are out of date, and it appears Lycoming won't sell them individually. Does anybody know of a pdf or hard copy source, or does anybody have a pdf to share? > > I'm looking for: > - IO-540 narrow deck parts manual, PC-215-1A, revision dated Aug 2010 > - Overhaul Manual, 60294-7-14, revision dated Jul 2011.


February 02, 2017 - February 27, 2017

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-ml