RV10-Archive.digest.vol-mm
February 27, 2017 - April 14, 2017
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim
>
> --
> Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
> A&P
> RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold
> RV-10 N31TD -- 850 hrs
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)MSN.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Seeking two documents: PC-215-1A (Narrow Deck parts manual, |
IO-540), 60294-7-14 (Lycoming overhaul manual)
Me also! Thanks, Dan
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 11:02 AM, "bdgillespie215(at)gmail.com"
wrote:
>
>
> 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are out of date, and it appears Lycoming won't sell them individually.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.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> --
>> Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
>> A&P
>> RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold
>> RV-10 N31TD -- 850 hrs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Seeking two documents: PC-215-1A (Narrow Deck parts manual, |
IO-540), 60294-7-14 (Lycoming overhaul manual)
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
As I sent in PM to Tim, I have a 1993 version of the parts manual. I
thought I had received a newer version of the OH manual, but can only
find the 1974 version right now.
AFAIK, most of the revisions to the OH manual are incorporation of some
of the 1000 or so service bulletins.
On 2/27/2017 9:57 AM, bdgillespie215(at)gmail.com wrote:
>
> 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are out of date, and it appears Lycoming won't sell them individually.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.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> --
>> Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
>> A&P
>> RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold
>> RV-10 N31TD -- 850 hrs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Seeking two documents: PC-215-1A (Narrow Deck parts manual, |
IO-540), 60294-7-14 (Lycoming overhaul manual)
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
I did find a copy of the OH manual with revisions through 2002, but I
think there were some more revisions about 10 yrs ago. It is also rather
large, at 70 Mb.
On 2/27/2017 10:15 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> As I sent in PM to Tim, I have a 1993 version of the parts manual. I
> thought I had received a newer version of the OH manual, but can only
> find the 1974 version right now.
> AFAIK, most of the revisions to the OH manual are incorporation of some
> of the 1000 or so service bulletins.
>
> On 2/27/2017 9:57 AM, bdgillespie215(at)gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
>>> A&P
>>> RV-6A N47TD -- 1104 hrs - sold
>>> RV-10 N31TD -- 850 hrs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vinyl lettering |
| From: | "Strasnuts" <sean(at)planearound.com> |
I get mine from here. I fly to Mexico every other year and just put these on.
They work great.
http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/vinyl-n-numbers-12-in.html
--------
40936
RV-10 SB N801VR Flying
650 hours
SuperSTOL 90%
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466735#466735
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Hey Folks,
I just wanted to close the loop on the whole starter experience in
switching from a 149-12PM to a 149-12NL starter. I also switched
out my RV-14 from a 149-12LS to a 149-12NL at the same time.
First, the install on the RV-10 went very well. As you guys
said, there is plenty of room for the starter. The only
things I ran into were:
1) I had an adel clamp holding a wire mounted on the left rear
stud, and that stud has a funky mounting lug on the new starter.
This meant the adel clamp would be hard to put in that spot, so
I had to make a 1.5" or so stainless "extension" arm for the
clamp. No big deal at all.
2) I had to cut about 3/4" of my wire off the end and install
a new terminal.
Every comment I read on forums said things like "the NL starter
spins the prop so fast you could taxi with it" and stuff like
that. (I know, that's tongue in cheek, but...)
My initial experience is that it did not seem faster than
the PM starter that I had before. But, it did not get stuck on
the initial compression of the engine when cranking, either.
So, to me, it seemed more powerful but less fast than the
starter I was used to. Not that I wasn't satisfied, but,
everyone talking about how fast it was made me skeptical
once I actually tried it out.
I checked the specs just now online, and that explains it.
NL: Geared 6.5:1, 125-220A @11V, 140 RPM Test
PM/LS: Geared 4.3:1, 185-285A @11V, 160 RPM Test
So indeed, the PM/LS will turn your prop faster, if it
can turn the prop. To that end, I probably should not have
bothered to swap out my RV-14 starter, because the
149-12LS turned the prop fast and it never got stuck on
a compression stroke.
The RV-14 install was a bit more painful, mainly because of
an intake snorkel in the way. The 149-12NL has 2 large
lugs that point down off the case, and both of those lugs
interfere with the air intake, so I had to cut them both
down to about 1/4-1/3 their height to make clearance.
Once I did that though, cutting 1/2" off the wire and
re-clocking the cable ring terminal was all it took.
It's a bit tighter under the engine on the -14, due to some
Throttle linkage parts that come with the kit. But, the
new starter works fine on that plane too.
All in all, I'm satisfied because both starters being the
same, I can now swap them if I ever need to. But, whereas
I think the IO-540 really requires the NL starter, the
IO-390 does not, and I'd probably suggest most -14 builders
just stick with the LS that came with their engine. It'll
crank faster, and do a fine job.
Next on the list is to sell the PM starter, and send in the
LS starter for bench testing under warranty.
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Langley <klangley1(at)mygrande.net> |
| Subject: | RV10 instructors |
I am wanting to add my AP/AI to my insurance policy so that he can act as PIC in
the RV10. Insurance is wanting him to have 2 hours with an instructor that has
25 hrs in make and model (RV10). I have taken him in my 10 and he can handle
the plane, but we need an instructor that is close to Waco, TX that can give
him the 2 hours (in my plane) and sign off.
Is there a qualifying and willing instructor within a reasonable distance of Waco?
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | flyindoorman(at)yahoo.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV10 instructors |
Try Bob Snowden in Fredericksburg T82
Randy
>
> On Mar 3, 2017 at 10:21 AM, wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kenneth Langley
>
> I am wanting to add my AP/AI to my insurance policy so that he can act as PIC
in the RV10. Insurance is wanting him to have 2 hours with an instructor that
has 25 hrs in make and model (RV10). I have taken him in my 10 and he can handle
the plane, but we need an instructor that is close to Waco, TX that can give
him the 2 hours (in my plane) and sign off.
> Is there a qualifying and willing instructor within a reasonable distance of
Waco?
>
> Thanks
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV10 instructors |
Odd how insurance companies come up with requirements. I've seen some only
limit coverage until XX hours experience.
The 10 isn't any more difficult to fly than any other plane of similar
horsepower, and easier than most because there is no gear retraction to
worry about. I see time with the owner as PIC more valuable, as only the
builder will know the avionics and how the trim and flaps are configured.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Kenneth Langley
wrote:
>
> I am wanting to add my AP/AI to my insurance policy so that he can act as
> PIC in the RV10. Insurance is wanting him to have 2 hours with an
> instructor that has 25 hrs in make and model (RV10). I have taken him in my
> 10 and he can handle the plane, but we need an instructor that is close to
> Waco, TX that can give him the 2 hours (in my plane) and sign off.
> Is there a qualifying and willing instructor within a reasonable distance
> of Waco?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV10 instructors |
Have several up here in Pecan 0tx1 (Granbury). =C2-Contact me off list, a
nd I'll see what I can do.Don McDonaldbuilding_partner(at)yahoo.com
From: Kenneth Langley <klangley1(at)mygrande.net>
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 10:21 AM
Subject: RV10-List: RV10 instructors
I am wanting to add my AP/AI to my insurance policy so that he can act as P
IC in the RV10. Insurance is wanting him to have 2 hours with an instructor
that has 25 hrs in make and model (RV10). I have taken him in my 10 and he
can handle the plane, but we need an instructor that is close to Waco, TX
that can give him the 2 hours (in my plane) and sign off.
Is there a qualifying and willing instructor within a reasonable distance o
f Waco?
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
S -
WIKI -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV10 instructors |
You might ask if there's an alternative. I've given and received "dual"
without a CFI involved. I know it's not really dual instruction but it
satisfied the insurance company. In a few cases I was specifically named as
the person to fly with so you might ask if your A&P can just get some
familiarization time logged with you.
--Dave
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Kenneth Langley
wrote:
I am wanting to add my AP/AI to my insurance policy so that he can act as
PIC in the RV10. Insurance is wanting him to have 2 hours with an
instructor that has 25 hrs in make and model (RV10). I have taken him in my
10 and he can handle the plane, but we need an instructor that is close to
Waco, TX that can give him the 2 hours (in my plane) and sign off.
Is there a qualifying and willing instructor within a reasonable distance
of Waco?
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | RV10 instructors |
I added my instructor to my insurance first and then my A&P. The
instructor did not require anything? A&P required 5 hours, but it did
not spec with instructor. When I added a flying partner, insurance
required 3 hours with an instructor. Jenny I think worked all that out
in the background for me to make it as simple as possible. My current
policy does not require named pilot and only 500 total time and 10 hours
in an RV-10.
=9COpen Pilot Warranty: Any pilot private or better with 500 total
logged hours as pilot in command with 10 hours in the RV10=9D
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Saylor
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2017 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV10 instructors
You might ask if there's an alternative. I've given and received "dual"
without a CFI involved. I know it's not really dual instruction but it
satisfied the insurance company. In a few cases I was specifically named
as the person to fly with so you might ask if your A&P can just get some
familiarization time logged with you.
--Dave
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Kenneth Langley > wrote:
>
I am wanting to add my AP/AI to my insurance policy so that he can act
as PIC in the RV10. Insurance is wanting him to have 2 hours with an
instructor that has 25 hrs in make and model (RV10). I have taken him in
my 10 and he can handle the plane, but we need an instructor that is
close to Waco, TX that can give him the 2 hours (in my plane) and sign
off.
Is there a qualifying and willing instructor within a reasonable
distance of Waco?
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
ass="gmail_msg"> _msg"> il_msg"> mail_msg"> -List" rel="noreferrer"
class="gmail_msg"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
FORUMS -
il_msg"> eferrer" class="gmail_msg"
target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
WIKI -
"> errer" class="gmail_msg"
target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV10 instructors |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Be very very careful about using the 'open pilot' warranty. Typically these protect
you from loss, but they do not protect your friend who is flying under this
clause. In fact most policies require that, if asked, you help the insurance
company to sue your friend, so that they can get their money back! So if it's
someone (cfi?) you hate, no problem. But if it's a friend, you're looking at
a potentially awkward, at best, situation.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466896#466896
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV10 instructors |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Bob,
I can't disagree with anything you say because it is accurate, however,
I was concerned recently about this when I just completed
my RV-10 renewal, that I would be leaving a friend hang if they
flew under the open pilot warranty, so I called Jenny at
NationAir (now Gallagher) to specifically ask about this. She said
that a suit against someone covered under the open pilot warranty
to recover damages is very rare, and really only done in cases of
negligence, FAR violation, or things of that nature. Now this
isn't to say a pilot shouldn't be wary of it, but it isn't necessarily
something that should cause a problem. I did choose to add a
friend as a named pilot last year, but this year removed them
because insurance companies also do not like to see too many names
listed as named pilots. At some point it begins to look more like
a flying club, and since I'll be having to add the wife and daughter
as named pilots I didn't want to add any others right now.
The open pilot clauses are rigorous enough at least to show that
they definitely want someone with RV experience to do the flying.
I see insurance in the RV-10 (and 14 for that matter) to be
fairly restrictive for many newer pilots, without a hefty
premium. It may serve a builder well to spend some time with
another RV builder as a safety pilot doing instrument approaches,
just to get their hours counting up, while they are building.
And of course, some stick time.
Tim
On 03/05/2017 03:57 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
>
> Be very very careful about using the 'open pilot' warranty. Typically
> these protect you from loss, but they do not protect your friend who
> is flying under this clause. In fact most policies require that, if
> asked, you help the insurance company to sue your friend, so that
> they can get their money back! So if it's someone (cfi?) you hate, no
> problem. But if it's a friend, you're looking at a potentially
> awkward, at best, situation.
>
> -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David" <dlm34077(at)cox.net> |
I concur with Tim; I got the same advice from Shanna at Nation
Air/Gallagher. I am qualifying another builder for the open pilot warranty
on my aircraft. I named him last year for a small extra premium as I usually
make a one stop to KOSH out of Phoenix and the extra qualified pilot allowed
a little rest. My open pilot is 750TT and 25TT RV10. Effective April I
return to two named pilots.
BTW I don't recall whether I posted the Dos and Don't list on insurance
claims but will post it soon. My claim for a hangar door encounter because
of a failed brake has been settled and "one always learns more than one ever
wanted to know".
DLM
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | A couple of questions |
1. Is there a crotch mount point for the front seat belts? Or are the
front seats only 4 point?
2. I am hearing from hangar neighbors that I need to create an LLC as the
registered manufacture. Not to put my name on as manufacture for liability
reasons. As well as sell the LLC with the plane, if I ever sell the plane.
Is this a pretty common thing for home builders to do? If so, any advice
on how to form the LLC and do things right with the FAA registration?
Thanks!
--
Vernon Franklin
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A couple of questions |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Hi Vernon,
4-point only up front.
I know many people do the LLC thing. I didn't but some do, so I
wouldn't say it's un-common. I would bet it's less than 50%, but
it's not uncommon at all. I can't offer advice on that but others
who did it I'm sure will.
Tim
On 3/7/2017 2:19 PM, Vernon Franklin wrote:
> 1. Is there a crotch mount point for the front seat belts? Or are the
> front seats only 4 point?
>
> 2. I am hearing from hangar neighbors that I need to create an LLC as
> the registered manufacture. Not to put my name on as manufacture for
> liability reasons. As well as sell the LLC with the plane, if I ever
> sell the plane. Is this a pretty common thing for home builders to do?
> If so, any advice on how to form the LLC and do things right with the
> FAA registration?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Vernon Franklin
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A couple of questions |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
On 3/7/2017 3:19 PM, Vernon Franklin wrote:
> 1. Is there a crotch mount point for the front seat belts? Or are the
> front seats only 4 point?
Back seats only. I removed the tab for the crotch attach point. If you
do that, make sure your upholsterer knows not to put the 'notch' in the
front of the seat .... as Vans plans call for.
>
> 2. I am hearing from hangar neighbors that I need to create an LLC as
> the registered manufacture. Not to put my name on as manufacture for
> liability reasons. As well as sell the LLC with the plane, if I ever
> sell the plane. Is this a pretty common thing for home builders to
> do? If so, any advice on how to form the LLC and do things right with
> the FAA registration?
I believe that you will still be the builder but the LLC will be the
owner. I haven't got to that point yet.
Linn
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Vernon Franklin
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | A couple of questions |
I did the LLC thing after I built and certified the airplane.
I did it only as a liability shield ...... if that is possible. I also have my
hanger in another S corp. If it is a single owner LLC the IRS ignores you and
you have to file as a disregarded entity for tax purposes. But, you have to
be careful that you run it as a business or any hope of having any liability
protection goes out the window. But, just remember that I am not a lawyer and
just another fool who built an airplane in his garage and then flys in it.
In Utah it takes about 10 minutes to do it on line.
After several years of flying I took on a flying partner and the LLC became real
handy, but it meant monthly billing (the way we agreed to doing it) etc. I
have also used the LLC for other business and that is a long story.
BTW the partner thing was great, but Uncle Sam decided to move him and now I am
all alone.
Drop me a personal e-mail if you want to know more about what I am doing in this
area. Email address is Rene at Felker dot Com.
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: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: A couple of questions
Hi Vernon,
4-point only up front.
I know many people do the LLC thing. I didn't but some do, so I wouldn't say it's
un-common. I would bet it's less than 50%, but it's not uncommon at all.
I can't offer advice on that but others who did it I'm sure will.
Tim
On 3/7/2017 2:19 PM, Vernon Franklin wrote:
> 1. Is there a crotch mount point for the front seat belts? Or are the
> front seats only 4 point?
>
> 2. I am hearing from hangar neighbors that I need to create an LLC as
> the registered manufacture. Not to put my name on as manufacture for
> liability reasons. As well as sell the LLC with the plane, if I ever
> sell the plane. Is this a pretty common thing for home builders to do?
> If so, any advice on how to form the LLC and do things right with the
> FAA registration?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Vernon Franklin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Condrey <condreyb(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A couple of questions |
Many do an LLC however it isn't much, if any shield from liability.
Remember, it's the builder that makes the "it's airworthy" initial logbook
entry. It's then whoever holds the repairman certificate or an A&P that
annually does the same thing. So while an LLC might be the owning entity,
it's an individual signing it off as airworthy. That said, having an LLC
as the owner might come in handy when selling the plane. You can just sell
the LLC and the plane continues to be owned by the same entity. Potential
tax advantages there because it won't trigger the recipient's state's tax
man to tax the airplane.
I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express nor am I an attorney so the above is
simply my opinion and worth what you paid for it.
Bob
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 2:50 PM Rene wrote:
>
> I did the LLC thing after I built and certified the airplane.
>
> I did it only as a liability shield ...... if that is possible. I also
> have my hanger in another S corp. If it is a single owner LLC the IRS
> ignores you and you have to file as a disregarded entity for tax purposes.
> But, you have to be careful that you run it as a business or any hope of
> having any liability protection goes out the window. But, just remember
> that I am not a lawyer and just another fool who built an airplane in his
> garage and then flys in it.
>
> In Utah it takes about 10 minutes to do it on line.
>
> After several years of flying I took on a flying partner and the LLC
> became real handy, but it meant monthly billing (the way we agreed to doing
> it) etc. I have also used the LLC for other business and that is a long
> story.
>
> BTW the partner thing was great, but Uncle Sam decided to move him and now
> I am all alone.
>
> Drop me a personal e-mail if you want to know more about what I am doing
> in this area. Email address is Rene at Felker dot Com.
>
>
> 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: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 1:27 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: A couple of questions
>
>
> Hi Vernon,
>
> 4-point only up front.
>
> I know many people do the LLC thing. I didn't but some do, so I wouldn't
> say it's un-common. I would bet it's less than 50%, but it's not uncommon
> at all. I can't offer advice on that but others who did it I'm sure will.
> Tim
>
>
> On 3/7/2017 2:19 PM, Vernon Franklin wrote:
> > 1. Is there a crotch mount point for the front seat belts? Or are the
> > front seats only 4 point?
> >
> > 2. I am hearing from hangar neighbors that I need to create an LLC as
> > the registered manufacture. Not to put my name on as manufacture for
> > liability reasons. As well as sell the LLC with the plane, if I ever
> > sell the plane. Is this a pretty common thing for home builders to do?
> > If so, any advice on how to form the LLC and do things right with the
> > FAA registration?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > --
> > Vernon Franklin
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A couple of questions |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
1. Stock kit has no crotch strap attach point up front. A few people have made
an attach point to the bottom of the seat frame (I know no details).
2. LLC laws vary by state, as do liability laws. If you are the sole pilot an LLC
will offer very limited protection, as after an accident the PIC and owners
will all be sued, and, in most states ("joint and several liability") a no-asset
LLC won't help. However, if you have a partner and he has the accident, having
an LLC may provide you with some protection. Here in CA an LLC has another
function. All aircraft sales are subject to the 9% state sales tax. If an LLC
owns the airplane, the airplane ownership doesn't change so no tax. You just
sell the stock in the LLC (said sale is subject to capital gains tax). OTOH,
CA charges a minimum annual tax on LLCs, I think it's $750/yr. You have to run
the numbers and decide what is best for you. As the sole pilot, I don't have
an LLC.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466979#466979
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Berck E. Nash" <flyboy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A couple of questions |
An LLC isn't going to provide any real shield from liability, so that would
be a poor reason to do it. In this case, it's trivial to, "pierce the
corporate veil," as lawyers say. Mine's an LLC simply because I've got a
partner, and it's much easier for two people to own an LLC than for two
people to own a plane. If I were the sole owner, I wouldn't bother.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A couple of questions |
I have dealt with the LLC issue quite a few times for different planes, in different
states and for different reasons.
1. The main benefit in many states is sales tax when it sells. As others have said,
you sell stock instead of the plane so there is no sales tax. This can be
a selling benefit to the buyer.
2. It does make partnerships much easier.
3. Some FSDO's/DAR's have let an LLC be the builder. This may shield from some
liability. The individual may sign off the condition inspection, but the last
condition inspection holds the most liability. This benefit is mainly for you
after you sell the plane. I don't know how the repairman certificate would be
possible in this scenario, and really don't see how it could possibly meet the
regs as legal, but I know it does happen.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 7, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Vernon Franklin wrote:
>
> 1. Is there a crotch mount point for the front seat belts? Or are the front
seats only 4 point?
>
> 2. I am hearing from hangar neighbors that I need to create an LLC as the registered
manufacture. Not to put my name on as manufacture for liability reasons.
As well as sell the LLC with the plane, if I ever sell the plane. Is this
a pretty common thing for home builders to do? If so, any advice on how to form
the LLC and do things right with the FAA registration?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Vernon Franklin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Cotton fiber instead of Cab-o-Sil |
Guys
I am prepared to glue today the doors halves, and just realised that Aircraft Spruce
didn't send me the Cab-o-Sil I had ordered last week.
I do have Cotton Fiber at hand, so my question is:
Can I use Cotton Fiber to thicken the gluing resin, instead of Cab-o-Sil?
Thanks
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cotton fiber instead of Cab-o-Sil |
I'm no expert, but I wouldn't do it. The cabosil is much lighter, mixes
more easily (but wear a mask...dust everywhere).
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote:
>
> Guys
>
> I am prepared to glue today the doors halves, and just realised that
> Aircraft Spruce didn't send me the Cab-o-Sil I had ordered last week.
> I do have Cotton Fiber at hand, so my question is:
> Can I use Cotton Fiber to thicken the gluing resin, instead of Cab-o-Sil?
>
> Thanks
> Carlos
>
> Enviado do meu iPhone
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A couple of questions |
| From: | "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net> |
An LLC is a waste of time for an individual, but is handy for a partnership. As
far as the tax man, they will find out when the LLC changes names, or owners.
Everything is done by computers, now.
--------
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467007#467007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
I'm no lawyer, and I opted to not do an LLC as it may not provide much
if any liability protection for an individual owner/pilot.
However, changing owners or name of LLC in most states is not a taxable
event as far as sales or property taxes. One can even do LLC within LLC
if there is a reason to further conceal ownership, or make attorneys
work harder to find who to sue.
You have to find out what fees and taxes are required to maintain LLC in
state the aircraft is based. I understand that Delaware or other
friendly state corporations may not offer protection against state
personal property and/or registration taxes. One does need to consult
with local aviation atty if you are inclined to go the LLC route. Advice
is worth the money. Paying them to do the mundane paperwork may not be
worth money. In AZ, I talked to AOPA referred atty after AOPA plan said
it would pay $200 towards LLC formation. Price to do it was $1200.
Talked to non-AOPA atty, price was $1000. Actual fees to file under $100
and can be done online if you are comfortable with making the choices.
On 3/8/2017 6:27 AM, johngoodman wrote:
>
> An LLC is a waste of time for an individual, but is handy for a partnership.
As far as the tax man, they will find out when the LLC changes names, or owners.
Everything is done by computers, now.
>
> --------
> #40572 Phase One complete in 2011
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467007#467007
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cotton fiber instead of Cab-o-Sil |
Cab-o-sil ash no strength at all. But it does thicken up the epoxy.
I did a mixture of cotton flox and Cab-o-Sil for this application. Worked w
ell.
Carl
> On Mar 8, 2017, at 8:21 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> I'm no expert, but I wouldn't do it. The cabosil is much lighter, mixes mo
re easily (but wear a mask...dust everywhere).
>
> -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
>
>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Carlos Trigo wrot
e:
>>
>> Guys
>>
>> I am prepared to glue today the doors halves, and just realised that Airc
raft Spruce didn't send me the Cab-o-Sil I had ordered last week.
>> I do have Cotton Fiber at hand, so my question is:
>> Can I use Cotton Fiber to thicken the gluing resin, instead of Cab-o-Sil?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Carlos
>>
>> Enviado do meu iPhone
>>
>> =========================
>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navi
gator?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: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cotton fiber instead of Cab-o-Sil |
I don't really see an issue with it, as long as the mixture isn't mixed so
much in favor of Fiber that it becomes dry and unable to flow into the
pores of the two halves.
Before I slathered it on, I'd use a small roller to roll-on a thin layer of
resin only. Just to be sure that it's given a chance to work into the
pores. Then I'd smear on the mixture. It might help bring a bit more
rigidity to the doors, which could be a good thing or a bad thing... (Not
sure. But there are always trade offs)
In the big picture though, I don't see a problem with it as long as you've
rolled on a coat of resin to get down into the surface.
Phil
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Carl Froehlich
wrote:
> Cab-o-sil ash no strength at all. But it does thicken up the epoxy.
>
> I did a mixture of cotton flox and Cab-o-Sil for this application. Worked
> well.
>
> Carl
>
> On Mar 8, 2017, at 8:21 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> I'm no expert, but I wouldn't do it. The cabosil is much lighter, mixes
> more easily (but wear a mask...dust everywhere).
>
> -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Carlos Trigo
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Guys
>>
>> I am prepared to glue today the doors halves, and just realised that
>> Aircraft Spruce didn't send me the Cab-o-Sil I had ordered last week.
>> I do have Cotton Fiber at hand, so my question is:
>> Can I use Cotton Fiber to thicken the gluing resin, instead of Cab-o-Sil?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Carlos
>>
>> Enviado do meu iPhone
>>
>> ===================================
>> -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: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cotton fiber instead of Cab-o-Sil |
Carlos,
Substituting cotton for Cab-o-sil to glue the door halves together would
create a strong structure, but I can think of a few possible issues:
Cotton will be heavier.
Since the door is so highly curved, some resin will run out of the bond
just due to gravity. Cab helps prevent that. So would a fast-curing resin
and heat, but you'll have less working time :-(
The door may end up "thicker" since the cotton layer between the skins will
be thicker than a resin/cab mixture.
If your layer of cotton isn't extremely uniform, you may end up with voids.
I think I just talked myself out of it! I'd hold off until you can get
some cabosil.
--Dave
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Carlos Trigo wrote:
>
> Guys
>
> I am prepared to glue today the doors halves, and just realised that
> Aircraft Spruce didn't send me the Cab-o-Sil I had ordered last week.
> I do have Cotton Fiber at hand, so my question is:
> Can I use Cotton Fiber to thicken the gluing resin, instead of Cab-o-Sil?
>
> Thanks
> Carlos
>
> Enviado do meu iPhone
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dlm <dlm34077(at)gmail.com> |
Look into the state partnership laws. In AZ an aircraft can be owned by an
LLC but LLC may have little value; the LLC is liened to a partnership for
the amount spent building the aircraft. The lien is filed with the FAA in
OKC. All entities can be sued but in AZ it is very disconcerting to the
plaintiff that suing the partnership results in a charging order that
accrues annually until the partnership terminates , then the partnership
is required to pay *if* any assets still exist. Partnerships terminate
after 98 years and heirs have unlimited access to spend everything by that
time. BTW the accrued money is taxable as both state and federal income in
the year accrued. The law was primarily set up for doctors, etc. but can't
preclude general use.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Langley <klangley1(at)mygrande.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV10 instructors |
Good idea
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 4, 2017, at 9:04 AM, David Saylor wrote:
>
> You might ask if there's an alternative. I've given and received "dual" wi
thout a CFI involved. I know it's not really dual instruction but it satisfi
ed the insurance company. In a few cases I was specifically named as the per
son to fly with so you might ask if your A&P can just get some familiarizati
on time logged with you.
>
> --Dave
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Kenneth Langley w
rote:
>
> I am wanting to add my AP/AI to my insurance policy so that he can act as P
IC in the RV10. Insurance is wanting him to have 2 hours with an instructor t
hat has 25 hrs in make and model (RV10). I have taken him in my 10 and he ca
n handle the plane, but we need an instructor that is close to Waco, TX that
can give him the 2 hours (in my plane) and sign off.
> Is there a qualifying and willing instructor within a reasonable distance o
f Waco?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> ==========
> ass="gmail_msg"> _msg"> il_msg"> mail_msg"> -List" rel="noreferrer" cl
ass="gmail_msg" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-
List
> ==========
> FORUMS -
> il_msg"> eferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">http://forums.matr
onics.com
> ==========
> WIKI -
> "> errer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">http://www.matron
ics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David" <dlm34077(at)cox.net> |
As I promised earlier I am enclosing tips for dealing with the insurance
company and other suppliers when involved in an insurance claim.
Having recently gone through a claim with all the bells and whistles; I am
told that the $25k claim is "small potatoes" to the aircraft insurance
business. Anyway I will relate a sanitized version of lessons learned and
Dos/Don'ts.
(1) The insurance adjustor is not your friend; he works for himself and the
insurance company. Make certain he has the correct email address; my
adjustor did not reply to my email but instead used a wrong address several
times and his response went astray and he apparently did not check his
rejected email for bad addresses. Also any teardown quote less than $10000
(plus damages) is, in my opinion, a "low ball" which contains the unspoken
proviso to make the profit on the aircraft owner.
(2) Do not allow the adjustor to pick the engine shop; be aware that engine
shops will "low ball" the quote and try and make the profit on the owner
after the engine is disassembled at their shop. The shop quotes usually meet
the minimum of the FAA protocol. Talk to local IAs about your selected shop
before letting anyone take your engine. If at all possible send your engine
to Lycoming or some other major engine shop with a good reputation.
(3) Be aware that there are engine shops "out there" that provide finders
fees to other individuals including IAs.
(4) Do not "help" the insurance company minimize the loss; they do not
appreciate it. You will find yourself in the middle of the raptor feeding
frenzy of vendors.
(5) What ever engine shop you use, give them written instructions to notify
you in writing of all changes that may be charged to you before they do the
work; and then authorize all (if any) changes (work orders) in writing.
Insist on good digital photographs or go and see; it you are not qualified,
take an IA or A&P with you. Be advised that if insurance is involved, the
incremental amount (total invoice minus insurance reimbursement) may not be
an economic small claims action.
(6) Recognize that you must pay their entire invoice to get your engine
returned. If the insurance company pays any part of the claim, up front they
have negotiating leverage to minimize your claim. If insurance pays
initially, the repair will take longer.
(7) Be present for the entire R&R and make notes or do it yourself; after
all you know the firewall forward better than any newbie assigned to remove
and replace your engine. Most quotes for this are a best effort basis and
about 25-30 hours; that is 10 hours for removal and 15-20 hours for
replacement. Quotes are very general. You might want to be specific;
example: engine run and logbook entry required if you are not repairman or
A&P.
(8) Be advised that R&R vendors look for "extra work". Extra work occurs
when they perform an extra task not considered (vendor opinion) in the
original estimate. Two examples: if the engine departed your hangar with the
starting magneto on the left side and the standard magneto on the right and
the engine shop returns the engine with switched magnetos, this could cause
extra work. On the other hand if the vendor removes the prop and leaves the
fore/aft spinner bulkheads in place on a damaged prop. To fit a new spinner
you may need to remove the old bulkheads to check for airworthy
(straight/not bent) parts. The vendor may try calling extra work when the
new prop is to be installed because they did not remove those parts; this is
not valid extra work. If you are not an A&P or have a repairman certificate
for the given aircraft, you may need a signoff from the operator. Be advised
that even vendor screw ups are billed; for example if they leave a loose oil
line connection and the aircraft and engine is drenched in oil at first
start, they still get paid for that and the clean up.
(9) Be aware of the "betterment" phenomena. Insurance companies allegedly
try to restore you to the moment before the incident/accident. If, for
example, they are required by damage protocols to do certain procedures or
parts replacement, they will try and charge for the "betterment". This is
true even if you have a $0 deductible policy.
Be Patient. Typical engine teardown/rebuild turnaround is 6-8 weeks;
insurance settlement about 8 weeks after aircraft flies.
This process reminds me of doing business in the third world (Middle East
1979-1995).
"You always learn more than you ever wanted to know"
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Cotton fiber instead of Cab-o-Sil |
Thanks to you all for the quick and helpful responses.
I decided to wait to get the Cab-o-Sil.
Cheers
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
No dia 08/03/2017, =C3-s 14:42, David Saylor escre
veu:
> Carlos,
>
> Substituting cotton for Cab-o-sil to glue the door halves together would c
reate a strong structure, but I can think of a few possible issues:
>
> Cotton will be heavier.
>
> Since the door is so highly curved, some resin will run out of the bond ju
st due to gravity. Cab helps prevent that. So would a fast-curing resin an
d heat, but you'll have less working time :-(
>
> The door may end up "thicker" since the cotton layer between the skins wil
l be thicker than a resin/cab mixture.
>
> If your layer of cotton isn't extremely uniform, you may end up with voids
.
>
> I think I just talked myself out of it! I'd hold off until you can get so
me cabosil.
>
> --Dave
>
>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Carlos Trigo wrot
e:
>>
>> Guys
>>
>> I am prepared to glue today the doors halves, and just realised that Airc
raft Spruce didn't send me the Cab-o-Sil I had ordered last week.
>> I do have Cotton Fiber at hand, so my question is:
>> Can I use Cotton Fiber to thicken the gluing resin, instead of Cab-o-Sil?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Carlos
>>
>> Enviado do meu iPhone
>>
>> =========================
>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navi
gator?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> |
Simple to install and works well. Self adhesive seals from McMaster.
Five years of service with no issue.
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cotton fiber instead of Cab-o-Sil |
| From: | Gordon Anderson <mregoan(at)hispeed.ch> |
Carlos,
I glued the door halves together the first time with Cab-o-Sil.
I got nervous about the cracking noises when I tried to flex the doors, so I peeled
them apart again by hand (very easy) and re-glued them using cotton flox
as filler. There is no way they are coming apart this time, and I really cannot
understand why Van's recommended a non-structural filler.
If you want to check for voids after gluing, backlight the assembly with a 150W
floodlight in a darkened room. It's a highly effective "poor man's x-ray" once
you can get the hang of interpreting the shadows.
Cheers,
Gordon, Switzerland
41015 finished this year, maybe.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cotton fiber instead of Cab-o-Sil |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Gordon Anderson wrote:
> Carlos,
>
> I glued the door halves together the first time with Cab-o-Sil.
>
> I got nervous about the cracking noises when I tried to flex the doors, so I
peeled them apart again by hand (very easy) and
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gordon, Switzerland
> 41015 finished this year, maybe.....
If you can peel apart by hand an epoxied joint something was not right.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467125#467125
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cotton fiber instead of Cab-o-Sil |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
I agree with Bob. No matter what the thickening agent, the bonding is
in the resin. I suspect that the surfaces were not cleaned. I use 80
grit sandpaper to roughen the surfacers and either lacquer thinner or
MEK to clean before bonding. Also, I wet the surfaces with epoxy prior
to adding the thickener. I've used the cotton flox everywhere except
when I'm using micro balloons to fill/shape surfaces.
Linn
On 3/9/2017 6:05 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
>
> Gordon Anderson wrote:
>> Carlos,
>>
>> I glued the door halves together the first time with Cab-o-Sil.
>>
>> I got nervous about the cracking noises when I tried to flex the doors, so I
peeled them apart again by hand (very easy) and
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Gordon, Switzerland
>> 41015 finished this year, maybe.....
>
> If you can peel apart by hand an epoxied joint something was not right.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467125#467125
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Cotton fiber instead of Cab-o-Sil |
Hi Gordon
Thanks for the answer, and the tips.
It also puzzled me why Van's recommend a non-structural filler but ....
Is your plane worth a new visit next time I'm in Swiss lands?
Cheers
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
No dia 09/03/2017, s 21:41, Gordon Anderson escreveu:
>
> Carlos,
>
> I glued the door halves together the first time with Cab-o-Sil.
>
> I got nervous about the cracking noises when I tried to flex the doors, so I
peeled them apart again by hand (very easy) and re-glued them using cotton flox
as filler. There is no way they are coming apart this time, and I really cannot
understand why Van's recommended a non-structural filler.
>
> If you want to check for voids after gluing, backlight the assembly with a 150W
floodlight in a darkened room. It's a highly effective "poor man's x-ray"
once you can get the hang of interpreting the shadows.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gordon, Switzerland
> 41015 finished this year, maybe.....
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Hanger Cell Reception |
| From: | "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Hi
I am finding that cell reception is my hanger is a bit spotty. My question is for
the technical mavens. Is there any simple / inexpensive way to improve cell
reception in a metal building? I see there are repeaters but they seem very pricey
for what I want / need.
Cheers
Les
RV10 C-GCWZ flying
RV10 C-GROK some assembly required
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467155#467155
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hanger Cell Reception |
The repeater is the only way to do that. They have some fairly cheap ones that
have an antenna outside and a unit inside with an antenna.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 10, 2017, at 5:36 PM, kearney wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> I am finding that cell reception is my hanger is a bit spotty. My question is
for the technical mavens. Is there any simple / inexpensive way to improve cell
reception in a metal building? I see there are repeaters but they seem very
pricey for what I want / need.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
> RV10 C-GCWZ flying
> RV10 C-GROK some assembly required
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467155#467155
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hanger Cell Reception |
Hey Les.
Unfortunately, cell repeaters are about the only way to go, and I agree that most
of the ones I've seen seem a lot pricier than they need to be.
In my case, I got lucky - I have a friend who brought Internet out to my hangar
for an ADS-B data feed (he's one of the guys who supply sites like Flight Aware
with tracking data). And my wireless provider (Rogers) supports cell calls
over Wifi, so it works rather well. But before we got the Internet out there,
I had to pretty much go outside if I wanted to take or make a cell call.
Dan
> On 2017-Mar-10, at 3:36 PM, kearney wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> I am finding that cell reception is my hanger is a bit spotty. My question is
for the technical mavens. Is there any simple / inexpensive way to improve cell
reception in a metal building? I see there are repeaters but they seem very
pricey for what I want / need.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
> RV10 C-GCWZ flying
> RV10 C-GROK some assembly required
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467155#467155
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
---
Dan Charrois
President, Syzygy Research & Technology
Phone: 780-961-2213
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <lewgall(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hanger Cell Reception |
Hey Les,
Weirdly, I live too close to a cell tower and have the "umbrella" effect. I
got this unit
http://www.ebay.com/itm/GSM-900MHz-Mobile-Cell-Phone-Signal-Booster-Repeater-Amplifier-Yagi-AntennaUB-/122270271447?hash=item1c77e047d7:g:rcUAAOSwI-BWJ0OT
At the time, it was cheaper cuz it came directly from China, and I had to
take it apart and find a cold solder joint, but it's worked fine for years
now. I liked it because it has the indoor and outdoor antennas included. I
actually mounted the receiving antenna outdoors on the chimney and it was
pretty sensitive to direction ... for best signal strength, I ended up
aiming it way above the tower. Indoors I had to trial and error position
the transmit antenna till I got the signal to the phone to max. I get max
bars standing next to the unit and it drops off the farther away you get,
but no noticeable dropping off of actual phone function throughout the
house.
Later, - Lew
-----Original Message-----
> On 2017-Mar-10, at 3:36 PM, kearney wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> I am finding that cell reception is my hanger is a bit spotty. My question
> is for the technical mavens. Is there any simple / inexpensive way to
> improve cell reception in a metal building? I see there are repeaters but
> they seem very pricey for what I want / need.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
> RV10 C-GCWZ flying
> RV10 C-GROK some assembly required
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467155#467155
>
>
---
Dan Charrois
President, Syzygy Research & Technology
Phone: 780-961-2213
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <lewgall(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hanger Cell Reception |
Oh yeah, My wife got an iPhone 6 (mine is a 5) and it didn't like the
repeater signal frequency (or so the Apple folks told her) and they told her
to activate the wi-fi deal like Dan did. That works fine for her.
-----Original Message-----
> On 2017-Mar-10, at 3:36 PM, kearney wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> I am finding that cell reception is my hanger is a bit spotty. My question
> is for the technical mavens. Is there any simple / inexpensive way to
> improve cell reception in a metal building? I see there are repeaters but
> they seem very pricey for what I want / need.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
> RV10 C-GCWZ flying
> RV10 C-GROK some assembly required
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467155#467155
>
>
---
Dan Charrois
President, Syzygy Research & Technology
Phone: 780-961-2213
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com> |
I am having a hard time identifying the mag that has the impulse coupler.
On my Cherokee, I get a very distinct click when turning the prop over, it
is very easy to identify. But with this 540, I am not getting anything.
It is a stock D4A5 with factory installed slicks purchased through Vans.
Is there a chance that it shipped without a coupler? If so, is that going
to be an issue, and should I purchase one? Do I still ground out the right
mag on startup in such a scenario?
Thanks in advance!
--
Vernon Franklin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Miller <gengrumpy(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Impulse Coupler |
It should be on your left mag, and you should be able to hear it by pulling the
prop through (with a plug out on each cylinder to make it easier to pull through).
Make sure your mag switch is OFF!
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Vernon Franklin wrote:
>
> I am having a hard time identifying the mag that has the impulse coupler. On
my Cherokee, I get a very distinct click when turning the prop over, it is very
easy to identify. But with this 540, I am not getting anything.
>
> It is a stock D4A5 with factory installed slicks purchased through Vans.
> Is there a chance that it shipped without a coupler? If so, is that going to
be an issue, and should I purchase one? Do I still ground out the right mag
on startup in such a scenario?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
>
> --
> Vernon Franklin
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Impulse Coupler |
| From: | "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com> |
Vernon,
Mine shipped with a retard breaker mag on the left. You'll need a Slick Start module
for starting, and wire using their diagrams.
--------
Lenny
N311LZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467239#467239
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Specketer <gspecketer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Impulse Coupler |
The mag with impulse coupler will have a spacer between the accessory case
and the mag. Yes you need to ground out the non impulse mag for starting.
Gary
Get Outlook for iOS
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-rv10-list-server@matronic
s.com> on behalf of Vernon Franklin
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 11:27:46 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Impulse Coupler
I am having a hard time identifying the mag that has the impulse coupler.
On my Cherokee, I get a very distinct click when turning the prop over, it
is very easy to identify. But with this 540, I am not getting anything.
It is a stock D4A5 with factory installed slicks purchased through Vans.
Is there a chance that it shipped without a coupler? If so, is that going
to be an issue, and should I purchase one? Do I still ground out the right
mag on startup in such a scenario?
Thanks in advance!
--
Vernon Franklin
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Impulse Coupler |
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
The stock engine from Vans does not have an impulse coupled mag. The left is a
retard breaker mag. You need a slick start. Yes, you need to ground the right
mag during start with the Slick Start.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 11:27 AM, Vernon Franklin wrote:
>
> I am having a hard time identifying the mag that has the impulse coupler. On
my Cherokee, I get a very distinct click when turning the prop over, it is very
easy to identify. But with this 540, I am not getting anything.
>
> It is a stock D4A5 with factory installed slicks purchased through Vans.
> Is there a chance that it shipped without a coupler? If so, is that going to
be an issue, and should I purchase one? Do I still ground out the right mag
on startup in such a scenario?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
>
> --
> Vernon Franklin
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Impulse Coupler |
| From: | "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com> |
According to this document from Lycoming, there are no approved impulse mags for
the D4A5.
https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1443L%20Approved%20Slick%20Magnetos.pdf
vernon.franklin(at)gmail. wrote:
> I am having a hard time identifying the mag that has the impulse coupler. On
my Cherokee, I get a very distinct click when turning the prop over, it is very
easy to identify. But with this 540, I am not getting anything.
>
>
> It is a stock D4A5 with factory installed slicks purchased through Vans.
> Is there a chance that it shipped without a coupler? If so, is that going to
be an issue, and should I purchase one? Do I still ground out the right mag on
startup in such a scenario?
>
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
>
> --
> Vernon Franklin
--------
Lenny
N311LZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467242#467242
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Impulse Coupler |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Could investigate swap of your Slick mags for overhauled Bendix S-1200
mags with impulse coupling. Makes it a D4B5 with much better high
altitude performance. The S-1200 are the best mags ever made. My
rebuilder offered me new Slick or overhauled S-6 or S-1200 mags all at
same price. I took the 1200s. A little tight fit with oil breather tube,
otherwise fine.
On 3/13/2017 9:18 AM, Lenny Iszak wrote:
>
> According to this document from Lycoming, there are no approved impulse mags
for the D4A5.
>
> https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1443L%20Approved%20Slick%20Magnetos.pdf
>
>
> vernon.franklin(at)gmail. wrote:
>> I am having a hard time identifying the mag that has the impulse coupler. On
my Cherokee, I get a very distinct click when turning the prop over, it is very
easy to identify. But with this 540, I am not getting anything.
>>
>>
>> It is a stock D4A5 with factory installed slicks purchased through Vans.
>> Is there a chance that it shipped without a coupler? If so, is that going to
be an issue, and should I purchase one? Do I still ground out the right mag
on startup in such a scenario?
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>>
>> --
>> Vernon Franklin
>
>
> --------
> Lenny
> N311LZ
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467242#467242
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)MSN.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Impulse Coupler |
Put a Shower of Sparks on it. Easy to do and starts much better than impulse coupled
anyway anytime.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> Could investigate swap of your Slick mags for overhauled Bendix S-1200 mags with
impulse coupling. Makes it a D4B5 with much better high altitude performance.
The S-1200 are the best mags ever made. My rebuilder offered me new Slick
or overhauled S-6 or S-1200 mags all at same price. I took the 1200s. A little
tight fit with oil breather tube, otherwise fine.
>
>> On 3/13/2017 9:18 AM, Lenny Iszak wrote:
>>
>> According to this document from Lycoming, there are no approved impulse mags
for the D4A5.
>>
>> https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1443L%20Approved%20Slick%20Magnetos.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> vernon.franklin(at)gmail. wrote:
>>> I am having a hard time identifying the mag that has the impulse coupler.
On my Cherokee, I get a very distinct click when turning the prop over, it is
very easy to identify. But with this 540, I am not getting anything.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is a stock D4A5 with factory installed slicks purchased through Vans.
>>> Is there a chance that it shipped without a coupler? If so, is that going
to be an issue, and should I purchase one? Do I still ground out the right mag
on startup in such a scenario?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Vernon Franklin
>>
>>
>> --------
>> Lenny
>> N311LZ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467242#467242
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Impulse Coupler |
Or better yet put on electronic ignition...
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Danny Riggs wrote:
>
>
> Put a Shower of Sparks on it. Easy to do and starts much better than impulse
coupled anyway anytime.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Could investigate swap of your Slick mags for overhauled Bendix S-1200 mags
with impulse coupling. Makes it a D4B5 with much better high altitude performance.
The S-1200 are the best mags ever made. My rebuilder offered me new Slick
or overhauled S-6 or S-1200 mags all at same price. I took the 1200s. A little
tight fit with oil breather tube, otherwise fine.
>>
>>> On 3/13/2017 9:18 AM, Lenny Iszak wrote:
>>>
>>> According to this document from Lycoming, there are no approved impulse mags
for the D4A5.
>>>
>>> https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1443L%20Approved%20Slick%20Magnetos.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> vernon.franklin(at)gmail. wrote:
>>>> I am having a hard time identifying the mag that has the impulse coupler.
On my Cherokee, I get a very distinct click when turning the prop over, it is
very easy to identify. But with this 540, I am not getting anything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a stock D4A5 with factory installed slicks purchased through Vans.
>>>> Is there a chance that it shipped without a coupler? If so, is that going
to be an issue, and should I purchase one? Do I still ground out the right mag
on startup in such a scenario?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Vernon Franklin
>>>
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Lenny
>>> N311LZ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467242#467242
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Impulse Coupler |
| From: | "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com> |
Yep, when you consider the cost of the SlickStart and the money you get selling
the brand new mag with the harness, the EI upgrade is practically free.
After a few a couple of different ignition setups I ended up with the retard mag
and a Lightspeed Plasma. I'm starting on the Lightspeed only and grounding out
the retard mag. Starts like a car when cold, a bit finicky when hot, but i'm
embarrassing myself less and less lately with my hot starts :)
Tim Olson wrote:
> Or better yet put on electronic ignition...
>
--------
Lenny
N311LZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467249#467249
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doc <docclv(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Vans shipped D4A5 engine |
We installed a factory new D4A5 when we built (2012). It has a
6393 Slick Mag on the Left side and a 6350 on the Right side (no impulse
couplings). Had no problem starting cold or hot (except for leaving the
mixture out when engine hot until it fires--2-3 seconds, and then
enriching the mixture) until we had about 270 hours on the new engine.
Started to be hard to start, especially when hot, then. A couple
flights later it ran a little rough with the Left Mag check at run up.
Put in new plugs in spite of the original plugs checking out good,
gapped and cleaned,etc. Still hard to start, even when cold. Pulled
Left Mag and had it "rebuilt-repaired" ($375). Starts immediately
now--just a couple turns of the prop. Still use the hot start routine
(Fuel mixture lean until fires) which they tell me is indicative of
D4A5's. N123CV #41087 Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Masys" <dmasys(at)u.washington.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Impulse Coupler |
Same story on my -10. Flew it for about 400 hours without a Slick start and
without knowing I even needed one. Always started great cold, but became
increasingly hard to start hot, till I once had to just leave the plane
overnight at an outlying airport. No fun. The Slick start module plus
IRAN'd mags solved the problem, but interestingly the mags are just a bit
over 450 hrs since the last maintenance and it's getting increasingly hard
to start the bird when it's hot, again.
This time around on mag maintenance, am probably going to go with the
Surefly electronic mag replacement (https://www.surefly.net/ ), and am
tempted to replace the right (non-retard) mag and leave the left mag with
Slickstart, and wire it so both the electronic ignition and the retarded
timing mag are active at startup. Surefly fires at TDC below 400 rpm and
Slickstart retards to TDC and increases dwell when energized via starter
circuit, if I understand correctly.
Any reason not to have both mags firing at TDC at startup? Seems like it
would maximize the likelihood of at least one cylinder firing during hot
start operations.
-Dan Masys
N104LD 960 hrs TTSN
----------------------------
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Impulse Coupler
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Most of the new starters really spin the engine with a good battery - enough
to
generate a spark from the mag without the need of any augmentation. See if
you
can find an old battery - one that barely spins the engine. And add in some
worn plugs, with gaps at their maximums instead of minimums. Does it still
start?
Here's the real test: For safety, pull all the plugs. Hook up plug#1 to the
harness,
and lay it on top of a cylinder where it has a good ground. Now slowly turn
the prop past TDC on #1. If you had an impulse mag you'd see it spark. With
no "slick start" you won't. Now repeat, but turn the prop faster and faster
until you see a spark. That's the minimum RPM you'll need to start the
engine.
You'd probably find it hard to hand-prop this engine. But maybe that's a
good thing?
duawil wrote:
> I dont understand the required part of this discussion. I have a Vans new
experimental
Lycoming D4A5 without the Slick start option and I have never had any
trouble starting. What am I missing?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Impulse Coupler |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
I have the impulse mag on the left and Lightspeed on the right
and have them both active for starting and it works well.
The lightspeed backs off the timing too, which makes this
OK. I'm guessing most electronic ignitions do this.
So your plan sounds good.
Tim
On 3/14/2017 8:24 AM, Dan Masys wrote:
>
> Same story on my -10. Flew it for about 400 hours without a Slick start and
> without knowing I even needed one. Always started great cold, but became
> increasingly hard to start hot, till I once had to just leave the plane
> overnight at an outlying airport. No fun. The Slick start module plus
> IRAN'd mags solved the problem, but interestingly the mags are just a bit
> over 450 hrs since the last maintenance and it's getting increasingly hard
> to start the bird when it's hot, again.
>
> This time around on mag maintenance, am probably going to go with the
> Surefly electronic mag replacement (https://www.surefly.net/ ), and am
> tempted to replace the right (non-retard) mag and leave the left mag with
> Slickstart, and wire it so both the electronic ignition and the retarded
> timing mag are active at startup. Surefly fires at TDC below 400 rpm and
> Slickstart retards to TDC and increases dwell when energized via starter
> circuit, if I understand correctly.
>
> Any reason not to have both mags firing at TDC at startup? Seems like it
> would maximize the likelihood of at least one cylinder firing during hot
> start operations.
>
> -Dan Masys
> N104LD 960 hrs TTSN
>
> ----------------------------
>
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Impulse Coupler
> From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
>
>
> Most of the new starters really spin the engine with a good battery - enough
> to
> generate a spark from the mag without the need of any augmentation. See if
> you
> can find an old battery - one that barely spins the engine. And add in some
> worn plugs, with gaps at their maximums instead of minimums. Does it still
> start?
> Here's the real test: For safety, pull all the plugs. Hook up plug#1 to the
> harness,
> and lay it on top of a cylinder where it has a good ground. Now slowly turn
> the prop past TDC on #1. If you had an impulse mag you'd see it spark. With
> no "slick start" you won't. Now repeat, but turn the prop faster and faster
> until you see a spark. That's the minimum RPM you'll need to start the
> engine.
> You'd probably find it hard to hand-prop this engine. But maybe that's a
> good thing?
>
>
> duawil wrote:
>> I dont understand the required part of this discussion. I have a Vans new
> experimental
> Lycoming D4A5 without the Slick start option and I have never had any
> trouble starting. What am I missing?
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | P Reid <rv10flyer(at)live.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Impulse Coupler |
Dan;
Im around where you are in hours since maintenence. I don't have any issues with
starting however- no slickstart installed. I have always started with BOTH.
I have found BOTH makes starting easier than grounding one MAG. Yes, even with
hot starts.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Masys
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 6:25 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Impulse Coupler
Same story on my -10. Flew it for about 400 hours without a Slick start and without
knowing I even needed one. Always started great cold, but became increasingly
hard to start hot, till I once had to just leave the plane overnight at
an outlying airport. No fun. The Slick start module plus IRAN'd mags solved
the problem, but interestingly the mags are just a bit over 450 hrs since the
last maintenance and it's getting increasingly hard to start the bird when it's
hot, again.
This time around on mag maintenance, am probably going to go with the Surefly electronic mag replacement (https://www.surefly.net/ ), and am tempted to replace the right (non-retard) mag and leave the left mag with Slickstart, and wire it so both the electronic ignition and the retarded timing mag are active at startup. Surefly fires at TDC below 400 rpm and Slickstart retards to TDC and increases dwell when energized via starter circuit, if I understand correctly.
Any reason not to have both mags firing at TDC at startup? Seems like it would
maximize the likelihood of at least one cylinder firing during hot start operations.
-Dan Masys
N104LD 960 hrs TTSN
----------------------------
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Impulse Coupler
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Most of the new starters really spin the engine with a good battery - enough to
generate a spark from the mag without the need of any augmentation. See if you
can find an old battery - one that barely spins the engine. And add in some
worn plugs, with gaps at their maximums instead of minimums. Does it still start?
Here's the real test: For safety, pull all the plugs. Hook up plug#1 to the harness,
and lay it on top of a cylinder where it has a good ground. Now slowly turn
the prop past TDC on #1. If you had an impulse mag you'd see it spark. With
no "slick start" you won't. Now repeat, but turn the prop faster and faster
until you see a spark. That's the minimum RPM you'll need to start the engine.
You'd probably find it hard to hand-prop this engine. But maybe that's a good thing?
duawil wrote:
> I dont understand the required part of this discussion. I have a Vans
> new
experimental
Lycoming D4A5 without the Slick start option and I have never had any trouble starting.
What am I missing?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Impulse Coupler |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
rv10flyer(at)live.com wrote:
> Dan;
> Im around where you are in hours since maintenence. I don't have any issues with
starting however- no slickstart installed. I have always started with BOTH.
I have found BOTH makes starting easier than grounding one MAG. Yes, even with
hot starts.
>
> --
If you are starting with 'normal', e.g., non - retarded timing mags, there is a
risk of 'kick-back', where if rpm's are low enough and the mag fires at 25 deg
BTDC the prop will swing backwards - possibly breaking some teeth off the ring
gear or starter. ($$$)
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467299#467299
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven DeFord <riveteddragon(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Tailplane attach |
So, I've run into a couple hiccups on attaching the tailplane/trim/etc.
1) I've installed the HS as described, but the elevator horns hit the
forward stop a few degrees before the 35 deg down-elevator specified in the
manual. I have a degree or so more up-elevator travel than required. It's
almost as though the HS/elevators are too far forward relative to the whole
in the rear deck, but I've checked, and it's all according to plan. The
plans say I can file off some of the forward stop until it fits, but that
looks like some significant filing, to the point that it'd be almost up to
the heads of the universal rivets holding it on (and thus, in violation of
proper engineering specs for rivet support). Anyone have this problem, or
advice to solve it?
2) On a possibly related note, I can't wind on the elevator nut to the
elevator trim push-pull cable on the starboard side-- it doesn't stick out
far enough to spin the little panel on. (You'll recall that the port
push-pull cable is the one that's about an inch forward on the trim servo
install bracket.) Is something not done right? Should I drill out the pop
rivets used to install the welded nut onto the elevator close out panel,
wind it onto the push pull cable, and then re-rivet?
3) Random question-- where did you guys route your static source tubing
from the tail/how did you mount it? Anyone got pictures of this?
Thanks!
Steven DeFord
925-596-0246 (cell)
RivetedDragon(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tailplane attach |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
#3 is the easy one. Inside, immediately route the tubing up, and join left and
right sides in a T fitting as high up in the tail one as possible. This will minimize
water ingestion problems.
#2. My memory is that It wasn't easy to spin the nut/little panel on. Involved
some bending of the cable and/or undoing the other end to gain some slack, I'm
no longer sure what I did.
#1. My memory is that there was some allowed range for full elevator travel, not
just one number? Ask Vans. I've seen some installations where the stick hits
the panel, and the builder just said "I never need that much nose down elevator"
Not saying that's right, but ask Vans what the minimum down angle is. PS I
presume "in trail" was zero?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467306#467306
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | Tailplane attach |
For number 2. I pulled it off and riveted itfast and
easy.
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steven DeFord
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 3:03 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Tailplane attach
So, I've run into a couple hiccups on attaching the tailplane/trim/etc.
1) I've installed the HS as described, but the elevator horns hit the
forward stop a few degrees before the 35 deg down-elevator specified in
the manual. I have a degree or so more up-elevator travel than
required. It's almost as though the HS/elevators are too far forward
relative to the whole in the rear deck, but I've checked, and it's all
according to plan. The plans say I can file off some of the forward
stop until it fits, but that looks like some significant filing, to the
point that it'd be almost up to the heads of the universal rivets
holding it on (and thus, in violation of proper engineering specs for
rivet support). Anyone have this problem, or advice to solve it?
2) On a possibly related note, I can't wind on the elevator nut to the
elevator trim push-pull cable on the starboard side-- it doesn't stick
out far enough to spin the little panel on. (You'll recall that the
port push-pull cable is the one that's about an inch forward on the trim
servo install bracket.) Is something not done right? Should I drill
out the pop rivets used to install the welded nut onto the elevator
close out panel, wind it onto the push pull cable, and then re-rivet?
3) Random question-- where did you guys route your static source tubing
from the tail/how did you mount it? Anyone got pictures of this?
Thanks!
Steven DeFord
925-596-0246 (cell)
RivetedDragon(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | Tailplane attach |
Number 1. I filed some of it away
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steven DeFord
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 3:03 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Tailplane attach
So, I've run into a couple hiccups on attaching the tailplane/trim/etc.
1) I've installed the HS as described, but the elevator horns hit the
forward stop a few degrees before the 35 deg down-elevator specified in
the manual. I have a degree or so more up-elevator travel than
required. It's almost as though the HS/elevators are too far forward
relative to the whole in the rear deck, but I've checked, and it's all
according to plan. The plans say I can file off some of the forward
stop until it fits, but that looks like some significant filing, to the
point that it'd be almost up to the heads of the universal rivets
holding it on (and thus, in violation of proper engineering specs for
rivet support). Anyone have this problem, or advice to solve it?
2) On a possibly related note, I can't wind on the elevator nut to the
elevator trim push-pull cable on the starboard side-- it doesn't stick
out far enough to spin the little panel on. (You'll recall that the
port push-pull cable is the one that's about an inch forward on the trim
servo install bracket.) Is something not done right? Should I drill
out the pop rivets used to install the welded nut onto the elevator
close out panel, wind it onto the push pull cable, and then re-rivet?
3) Random question-- where did you guys route your static source tubing
from the tail/how did you mount it? Anyone got pictures of this?
Thanks!
Steven DeFord
925-596-0246 (cell)
RivetedDragon(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tailplane attach |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
I see Bob replied well to your questions so I'll make mine short...
Regarding #1, if you're looking at down-elevator, and the horns are
physically hitting the stops,
and you're within a couple degrees, I wouldn't sweat it too much. You'll
never find the need
to go farther than what you have if your nose down hits those stops. I
would say this
with a little more confidence because you said your up elevator is
within a degree or so of the
requirements....so your plane must be built pretty much right in line
with the expected
travels. If you had vast differences in both ends, I'd think maybe the
weldment was
not correct, but in your case I'd say go with it as it is. If you're
within a couple degrees
you'll be just fine. Before your first flight, maybe have another RV
guy look over all
your controls with you just as a second check...preferably an RV-10 guy.
Tim
On 3/14/2017 4:02 PM, Steven DeFord wrote:
> So, I've run into a couple hiccups on attaching the tailplane/trim/etc.
>
> 1) I've installed the HS as described, but the elevator horns hit the
> forward stop a few degrees before the 35 deg down-elevator specified
> in the manual. I have a degree or so more up-elevator travel than
> required. It's almost as though the HS/elevators are too far forward
> relative to the whole in the rear deck, but I've checked, and it's all
> according to plan. The plans say I can file off some of the forward
> stop until it fits, but that looks like some significant filing, to
> the point that it'd be almost up to the heads of the universal rivets
> holding it on (and thus, in violation of proper engineering specs for
> rivet support). Anyone have this problem, or advice to solve it?
>
> 2) On a possibly related note, I can't wind on the elevator nut to
> the elevator trim push-pull cable on the starboard side-- it doesn't
> stick out far enough to spin the little panel on. (You'll recall that
> the port push-pull cable is the one that's about an inch forward on
> the trim servo install bracket.) Is something not done right? Should
> I drill out the pop rivets used to install the welded nut onto the
> elevator close out panel, wind it onto the push pull cable, and then
> re-rivet?
>
> 3) Random question-- where did you guys route your static source
> tubing from the tail/how did you mount it? Anyone got pictures of this?
>
> Thanks!
> Steven DeFord
> 925-596-0246 (cell)
> RivetedDragon(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tailplane attach |
1) I would recommend that you file as much as you can without going
beyond edge distance requirements on the rivets and see how much that
gives you.
2) Unscrew the 4 screws holding the plate under the HS attachment deck.
That will allow you to pull the cable out far enough to screw on the
plate. Then do the same on the other side.
3) Many different ways over the years. Usually attached to the bulkhead
with zipties to where the two sides meet and T off, then with edge
grommet through the lightening holes forward to conduit running under
the rear seat and baggage floor and then to the side panels forward.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Steven DeFord
wrote:
>
> So, I've run into a couple hiccups on attaching the
tailplane/trim/etc.
>
> 1) I've installed the HS as described, but the elevator horns hit the
forward stop a few degrees before the 35 deg down-elevator specified in
the manual. I have a degree or so more up-elevator travel than
required. It's almost as though the HS/elevators are too far forward
relative to the whole in the rear deck, but I've checked, and it's all
according to plan. The plans say I can file off some of the forward
stop until it fits, but that looks like some significant filing, to the
point that it'd be almost up to the heads of the universal rivets
holding it on (and thus, in violation of proper engineering specs for
rivet support). Anyone have this problem, or advice to solve it?
>
> 2) On a possibly related note, I can't wind on the elevator nut to
the elevator trim push-pull cable on the starboard side-- it doesn't
stick out far enough to spin the little panel on. (You'll recall that
the port push-pull cable is the one that's about an inch forward on the
trim servo install bracket.) Is something not done right? Should I
drill out the pop rivets used to install the welded nut onto the
elevator close out panel, wind it onto the push pull cable, and then
re-rivet?
>
> 3) Random question-- where did you guys route your static source
tubing from the tail/how did you mount it? Anyone got pictures of this?
>
> Thanks!
> Steven DeFord
> 925-596-0246 (cell)
> RivetedDragon(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "g.combs" <g.combs(at)aerosportmodeling.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tailplane attach |
Steve I think 35 degrees of down is way to much. I believe the recommended a
mount of down is somewhere between 19 to 23 for
Down elevator.
Geoff
Sent from my iPhone
Geoff Combs
Aerosport Modeling & Design
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Steven DeFord wrote
:
>
> So, I've run into a couple hiccups on attaching the tailplane/trim/etc.
>
> 1) I've installed the HS as described, but the elevator horns hit the for
ward stop a few degrees before the 35 deg down-elevator specified in the man
ual. I have a degree or so more up-elevator travel than required. It's alm
ost as though the HS/elevators are too far forward relative to the whole in t
he rear deck, but I've checked, and it's all according to plan. The plans s
ay I can file off some of the forward stop until it fits, but that looks lik
e some significant filing, to the point that it'd be almost up to the heads o
f the universal rivets holding it on (and thus, in violation of proper engin
eering specs for rivet support). Anyone have this problem, or advice to sol
ve it?
>
> 2) On a possibly related note, I can't wind on the elevator nut to the el
evator trim push-pull cable on the starboard side-- it doesn't stick out far
enough to spin the little panel on. (You'll recall that the port push-pull
cable is the one that's about an inch forward on the trim servo install bra
cket.) Is something not done right? Should I drill out the pop rivets used
to install the welded nut onto the elevator close out panel, wind it onto t
he push pull cable, and then re-rivet?
>
> 3) Random question-- where did you guys route your static source tubing f
rom the tail/how did you mount it? Anyone got pictures of this?
>
> Thanks!
> Steven DeFord
> 925-596-0246 (cell)
> RivetedDragon(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Lark" <jrlark(at)bmts.com> |
| Subject: | Tailplane attach |
Steve, #1, I filed a bit to get the proper deflection. During my final
inspection the MDRA inspector (Canada) wanted to know what the angle was
supposed to be, to which he measured it to ensure it was per design
specifications.
#2 as others have said, keep working the cable, it should eventually
fit.
#3 again as other said, route both static sources up and
=9CT=9D it off to the front from there.
Good luck
Rick
#40956
Southampton, Ont
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steven DeFord
Sent: March 14, 2017 4:03 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Tailplane attach
So, I've run into a couple hiccups on attaching the tailplane/trim/etc.
1) I've installed the HS as described, but the elevator horns hit the
forward stop a few degrees before the 35 deg down-elevator specified in
the manual. I have a degree or so more up-elevator travel than
required. It's almost as though the HS/elevators are too far forward
relative to the whole in the rear deck, but I've checked, and it's all
according to plan. The plans say I can file off some of the forward
stop until it fits, but that looks like some significant filing, to the
point that it'd be almost up to the heads of the universal rivets
holding it on (and thus, in violation of proper engineering specs for
rivet support). Anyone have this problem, or advice to solve it?
2) On a possibly related note, I can't wind on the elevator nut to the
elevator trim push-pull cable on the starboard side-- it doesn't stick
out far enough to spin the little panel on. (You'll recall that the
port push-pull cable is the one that's about an inch forward on the trim
servo install bracket.) Is something not done right? Should I drill
out the pop rivets used to install the welded nut onto the elevator
close out panel, wind it onto the push pull cable, and then re-rivet?
3) Random question-- where did you guys route your static source tubing
from the tail/how did you mount it? Anyone got pictures of this?
Thanks!
Steven DeFord
925-596-0246 (cell)
RivetedDragon(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tailplane attach |
| From: | "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com> |
I just posted this image via email but it looks like it never made it to the list.
The Elevator tab at 35 degrees down is the elevator trim tab they are talking about
not the elevator itself.
--------
Lenny
N311LZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467317#467317
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/final_inspection_limits_167.png
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lenny <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tailplane attach |
Here are the limits:
Lenny
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 7:33 PM, g.combs
wrote:
>
> Steve I think 35 degrees of down is way to much. I believe the
recommended amount of down is somewhere between 19 to 23 for
> Down elevator.
>
> Geoff
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> Geoff Combs
> Aerosport Modeling & Design
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Steven DeFord
wrote:
>
>> So, I've run into a couple hiccups on attaching the
tailplane/trim/etc.
>>
>> 1) I've installed the HS as described, but the elevator horns hit
the forward stop a few degrees before the 35 deg down-elevator specified
in the manual. I have a degree or so more up-elevator travel than
required. It's almost as though the HS/elevators are too far forward
relative to the whole in the rear deck, but I've checked, and it's all
according to plan. The plans say I can file off some of the forward
stop until it fits, but that looks like some significant filing, to the
point that it'd be almost up to the heads of the universal rivets
holding it on (and thus, in violation of proper engineering specs for
rivet support). Anyone have this problem, or advice to solve it?
>>
>> 2) On a possibly related note, I can't wind on the elevator nut to
the elevator trim push-pull cable on the starboard side-- it doesn't
stick out far enough to spin the little panel on. (You'll recall that
the port push-pull cable is the one that's about an inch forward on the
trim servo install bracket.) Is something not done right? Should I
drill out the pop rivets used to install the welded nut onto the
elevator close out panel, wind it onto the push pull cable, and then
re-rivet?
>>
>> 3) Random question-- where did you guys route your static source
tubing from the tail/how did you mount it? Anyone got pictures of this?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Steven DeFord
>> 925-596-0246 (cell)
>> RivetedDragon(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tailplane attach |
My takes.
#1 - Geoff sounds right about 35 deg. That sounds like way too much and I d
on't have my section 5 here to double check. But that doesn't seem right t
o me.
However, assuming its right, you mentioned that you had some extra up elevat
or and not enough down. I'd turn the elev pushrod bearings in a few more tu
rns until your up elevator is within spec and then recheck your down. You m
ight find that taking the extra off the top will give you enough on the bott
om.
I'd also caution you to not invest much time in reaching this spec until you
have the panel, switches, and push/pull cables, and sticks all installed. I
f they aren't installed, there's a good chance you're solving a problem that
you're only good to have to solve again later down the road with different r
igging and bent sticks.
#2 - Consider using screws to hold the base down. Just wind it on, then pu
t the screws in with a small wrench to hold the nuts. You might even be ab
le to use nut plates, but i used nuts and didn't have any issue getting them
in there.
#3 - Brought the pilot side port around the bulkhead and T'd into the Pax si
de port. Then brought the T'd line forward through the baggage bulkhead w
ith a snap bushing. Was sure to move the hole in the bulkhead far enough o
utboard so it didn't interfere with the bulkhead covers. Also far enough o
utboard to slip underneath the cover panel. I have Geoff's interior panels
and they cover that area directly above the longeron that you're staring at
when you open the baggage door. The line is slipped behind that and basica
lly follows the longeron forward (except as needed to route through a few ho
les along the way.)
Phil
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 4:44 PM, Rene wrote:
>
> For number 2. I pulled it off and riveted itfast and ea
sy.
>
> Rene'
> 801-721-6080
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steven DeFord
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 3:03 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Tailplane attach
>
> So, I've run into a couple hiccups on attaching the tailplane/trim/etc.
>
> 1) I've installed the HS as described, but the elevator horns hit the for
ward stop a few degrees before the 35 deg down-elevator specified in the man
ual. I have a degree or so more up-elevator travel than required. It's alm
ost as though the HS/elevators are too far forward relative to the whole in t
he rear deck, but I've checked, and it's all according to plan. The plans s
ay I can file off some of the forward stop until it fits, but that looks lik
e some significant filing, to the point that it'd be almost up to the heads o
f the universal rivets holding it on (and thus, in violation of proper engin
eering specs for rivet support). Anyone have this problem, or advice to sol
ve it?
>
> 2) On a possibly related note, I can't wind on the elevator nut to the el
evator trim push-pull cable on the starboard side-- it doesn't stick out far
enough to spin the little panel on. (You'll recall that the port push-pull
cable is the one that's about an inch forward on the trim servo install bra
cket.) Is something not done right? Should I drill out the pop rivets used
to install the welded nut onto the elevator close out panel, wind it onto t
he push pull cable, and then re-rivet?
>
> 3) Random question-- where did you guys route your static source tubing f
rom the tail/how did you mount it? Anyone got pictures of this?
>
> Thanks!
> Steven DeFord
> 925-596-0246 (cell)
> RivetedDragon(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tailplane attach |
Ah sure. For the trim tab you will for sure want good travel for tab down to ensure
you have full up-elevator travel and trim.
Tim
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 9:07 PM, Lenny Iszak wrote:
>
>
> I just posted this image via email but it looks like it never made it to the
list.
> The Elevator tab at 35 degrees down is the elevator trim tab they are talking
about not the elevator itself.
>
> --------
> Lenny
> N311LZ
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467317#467317
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/final_inspection_limits_167.png
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven DeFord <riveteddragon(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tailplane attach |
Thank you-- I hadn't seen that page yet!
Steve
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 19:07, Lenny Iszak wrote:
>
>
> I just posted this image via email but it looks like it never made it to the
list.
> The Elevator tab at 35 degrees down is the elevator trim tab they are talking
about not the elevator itself.
>
> --------
> Lenny
> N311LZ
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467317#467317
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/final_inspection_limits_167.png
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tailplane attach |
| From: | "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com> |
riveteddragon(at)gmail.co wrote:
> Thank you-- I hadn't seen that page yet!
>
> Steve
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
You're welcome! BTW in older kits that elevator trim nut used to have a crappy
weld on it. At the time i was working on mine (2008) there was an aftermarket
part available machined out of aluminum. Van's later fixed theirs. I attached
mine with #6 screws and locknuts, like Phil suggested.
--------
Lenny
N311LZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467324#467324
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Impulse Coupler |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Yes, you'll need a Slick Start. I didn't really understand much when I
took shipment and did inventory but I missed the fact that my engine
bill included the price of the Slick Start but didn't include the actual
unit. When I got around to finishing up the FWF work I discovered I
needed it. Sometime after I bought and installed it I discovered I had
paid for it twice. Just a reminder that inventory is important.
Oh, BTW, it all works great. Easy cold starts despite the dumbass light
weight starter (soon to be changed out) and rough but easy hot starts
(do nothing different except keep the boost pump off).
Bill "swapping out Slicks for rebuilts at 800 hours just because" Watson
On 3/13/2017 11:46 AM, Lenny Iszak wrote:
>
> Vernon,
>
> Mine shipped with a retard breaker mag on the left. You'll need a Slick Start
module for starting, and wire using their diagrams.
>
> --------
> Lenny
> N311LZ
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467239#467239
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Impulse Coupler |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
My 'new' SlickStart from Vans clearly wasn't new - it had a yellow tag on it from
Slick. I called Vans, and they apologized profusely, and offered either for
me to send it back for a new one, or keep it for the OH unit price. I chose the
latter, Vans sent a check for the difference. Point is, there are some lower
cost options other than new. Sorry I don't remember the OH price, but it has
worked just fine. I'm not sure 'overhauled' is the right word. It was returned
to Vans, they ran it by Slick who tested it and said it was okay. Just not new
anymore.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467349#467349
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> |
At about 900 hobbs on my RV-10 I began experiencing random misfirings on
both my Lightspeed and slick ignition systems. Klaus recommends replacing
the LSE wires at 500 hours and I replaced the slick harness soon after. Both
systems are running smoothly now at 1100+ hours.
Albert Gardner
RV-10 N991RV
Yuma, AZ
PS: I had the wheel pants off for repainting and made what used to be a 4.3
hour flight that took almost 6. Same on return but we had a little TW. Lots
more gas, some at $5.59.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Albert Gardner wrote:
>
> PS: I had the wheel pants off for repainting and made what used to be a 4.3
> hour flight that took almost 6. Same on return but we had a little TW. Lots
> more gas, some at $5.59.
Yep. I started phase one minus wheel and gear leg fairings (all 3 wheels) and was
disappointed at the speeds. Once I put them all on, I gained 15 knots!
Back when I was a partner in a 182 we could barely tell the difference if they
were on or off. I guess good (but not obvious) design does make a difference.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467366#467366
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com> |
...so I replaced all of the wires. Pretty easy and convenient to do with bulk wire
and the right crimper...
Tim,
Where can you get the bulk wire, fittings, and crimper?
--------
Dave Ford
RV6 for sale
RV10 building
Cadillac, MI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467381#467381
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
I got mine from Summit Racing. You can get the cable (MSD as I recall), the boots,
then they offer several types of crimpers. A cheap little tool that basically
a block that crimps, or dies for your ratchet type of crumpet you probably
used for terminal ends and coax, to dedicated crimpers.
I opted for the dies that fit in my ratchet set of crimpers. But also bought the
cheap block to use in a pinch. I plan on keeping it in my tool bag and being
able to rebuild a lead with parts from NAPA if needed.
Phil
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 16, 2017, at 6:15 AM, rvdave wrote:
>
>
> ...so I replaced all of the wires. Pretty easy and convenient to do with bulk
wire and the right crimper...
>
>
> Tim,
> Where can you get the bulk wire, fittings, and crimper?
>
> --------
> Dave Ford
> RV6 for sale
> RV10 building
> Cadillac, MI
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467381#467381
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
It does make you wonder. Aviation plug harnesses are generally good for
engine TBO. Automotive wires on cars are usually good for at least 100,000
miles. Then there is the choice of pre-made harness vs making your own with
cost of materials and tools and your time.
Kind of like, I poured my own concrete 13 cu/yd slab 35 yrs ago. Since then
have always hired professionals for concrete work.
To drift the thread a bit...has anyone had problems with CHT rise after
installing any brand electronic ignition? I understand some have much
sharper advance curves than others.
A friend installed a 4 cyl electronic ignition on an RV-8 and saw a 50
degree rise in CHT, that make force him to remove the system.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:53 AM, John Maccallum
wrote:
> john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com>
>
> G'day Albert,
> I'm just wondering if Lightspeed or anyone else indicated what the failure
> mode is for the Wiring?
>
> cheers
>
> John MacCallum
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
The wire I bought was this:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/msd-34019
The crimper I bought was this:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/msd-35051
I would really recommend that you for sure have the right crimper, so
unless you can get these dies for your existing crimper, just buy
the right one.
The terminals and boots I bought were these:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/msd-8852
Might be good to stock up on these because with some bulk wire you
can then be good for years.
I do think I cut some of the terminal boots off a little on
length on my RV-10, so just compare them to the ones that came
with the ignition and if they seem too long, use a razor knife and
shorten them a tiny bit. Otherwise, they are the same thing.
These are the wire separators:
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/msd-8841
Very handy for making a neat installation.
The plugs to use on the RV-10 are these IK27 plugs: (I've
also used IK24's and they work great too)
https://www.amazon.com/Denso-IK27-Iridium-Power-Spark/dp/B000CIY4FM/ref=sr_1_1?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1489672354&sr=1-1&keywords=IK27+Denso
On the RV-140 with the IO-390 I needed the long reach plugs.
https://www.amazon.com/Denso-IKH27-Iridium-Power-Spark/dp/B000M6URAA
(Never forget the "H" on the IO-390)
The IO-540 uses ones without the H.
For coils, there are similar coils out there from Nology, but
you have to beware of them. It's very important to get the
proper ohm coil and the coil that Klaus uses is customized.
He does use a stock part number from the company that makes them
in Germany, but, the lug on them is female when they come from
the factory. He has the lugs made specially for his coils and
gets them pressed in somehow. So I would highly recommend
that you just get the coils from Klaus, and always keep one
as a spare.
On my RV-14 site I did do some photos of the wire install.
Nothing too spectacular. It looks like I never did do a write-up
on my wire replacement on the RV-10 or I would have posted all
of this there.
Tim
On 3/16/2017 6:15 AM, rvdave wrote:
>
> ...so I replaced all of the wires. Pretty easy and convenient to do with bulk
wire and the right crimper...
>
>
> Tim,
> Where can you get the bulk wire, fittings, and crimper?
>
> --------
> Dave Ford
> RV6 for sale
> RV10 building
> Cadillac, MI
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
Exactly correct. The wires and coils Klaus uses are automotive products. T
here is no reasonable "it just needs to be replaced at 500 hours" logic. H
ow often do you replace the coils and wires on your car?
This rings of my rule #3, "when something does not sound right it is strong i
ndication that you just don't have the whole story". Just like when I had
my first hard in flight Lightspeed failure and calling Klaus he said "ok, j
ust cut out a capacitor on the board and you will be fine". I choose to se
nd in the box. =46rom this exchange I gathered my 30 seconds on the phone t
elling Klaus the ignition breaker popped and would not reset he knew exactly
what happened. What followed was Klaus doing an "upgrade" that would fix t
hings. It did not, but it cost me a pile of cash to find out.
When I pulled my two Lightspeed off the RV-8A I gave them to another Lightsp
eed RV guy as spares. He soon scraped his Lightspeeds and replaced with pMa
gs.
Not that I have any strong opinion on the subject.....
WRT CHT, before you blame the ignitions make sure you really did the timing r
ight. If you are running pMags do a data run with the timing jumper in and t
hen out to compare.
Most (if not all) ignitions mimic the same 25 degrees BTDC (or 20 degrees fo
r the 200hp IO-360 or 210hp IO-390) at full power as do stock mags. As such
, if you are seeing high CHTs under full power, I'd first look at timing. A
fter that perhaps induction leaks.
I find the main advantage of pMags over mags, besides much easier maintenanc
e and not using those grossly overpriced spark plugs is that the advance tim
ing when at LOP cruise really makes the engine sing. The pMags do a nice jo
b starting the burn earlier for this lean charge so that you get all the fue
l used.
Carl
> On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> It does make you wonder. Aviation plug harnesses are generally good for en
gine TBO. Automotive wires on cars are usually good for at least 100,000 mil
es. Then there is the choice of pre-made harness vs making your own with cos
t of materials and tools and your time.
> Kind of like, I poured my own concrete 13 cu/yd slab 35 yrs ago. Since the
n have always hired professionals for concrete work.
>
> To drift the thread a bit...has anyone had problems with CHT rise after in
stalling any brand electronic ignition? I understand some have much sharper a
dvance curves than others.
> A friend installed a 4 cyl electronic ignition on an RV-8 and saw a 50 deg
ree rise in CHT, that make force him to remove the system.
>
> -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
>
>> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:53 AM, John Maccallum wrote:
om>
>>
>> G'day Albert,
>> I'm just wondering if Lightspeed or anyone else indicated what the failur
e mode is for the Wiring?
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> John MacCallum
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
You're correct that he was referring to the red plug wires that
he likes to see replaced, because of the very high level
of energy that they carry. But, while the input wires are
definitely lowER voltage, they aren't really "low".
Per Klaus the coil input is made for ~500V input which
is actually approx 320V positive and 220V negative.
Whatever you do, don't just go and look up that PVL coil
part number and buy them somewhere else. His part number
is the same (and it's the same coil basically) as a PVL
coil, but, the ones sold elsewhere will have a female
socket on the coil. Klaus has the coils set up with machined
male lugs on them because the female connectors weren't
designed for the type of wires we use. So those are
modified by someone else for him. There is also a
company called Nology that uses a similar coil that
is available in male form, but it isn't of the same
omh-age as Klaus's coil. He has very tight specs for what
the ohm measurement is on the input side of the coil.
His price may be $10 or even $20 more than you would
pay for the coil from somewhere else, but it's definitely
worth going to him to get the exact proper coil.
Also, as I mentioned before, definitely go with iridium
plugs. I talked to him in January at length about the
coils and plugs and coil failures drastically dropped
off after switching to iridium.
Also, don't use random car plug wire. MAYBE in a
pinch you could do that, but he absolutely is adamant
that the MSD wire is really the only wire to use for
the energy levels of spark his system puts out.
Just buy a roll of 25' and you'll have enough for a
lot of years of flying.
Tim
On 3/16/2017 2:21 PM, Don McDonald wrote:
> Right. Those are low voltage. Sometimes when you have what you have,
> and others have had bad experiences with the same, you tend to just keep
> quiet and wait for possibly a better product. But so far with Klaus's
> LSIII, I've lost 2 coils, and have replaced the ignition wires once. It
> has worked pretty much flawlessly, no engine start issues, cold or hot,
> and great power (also at LOP). Over 900 hours, and would never put a
> traditional mag on my engine based on all the issues I hear about them.
> Also haven't lost a coil in 3 years since I put together a 12volt fan,
> mounted in foam, which within 2 minutes from engine shutdown can be
> inserted and running inside my left cowl inlet.
> Sorry for all of you that have had problems, but no one here at Pecan
> has had any.
> Don McDonald
> 0tx1
> ps. Summit racing is a great place to get lots of stuff.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com> |
Tim,
Thanks for the links. Given the rarity I'll probably need to crimp conne
ctors on ignition wire, any problem with getting this tool instead and save a
lmost $75?
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/msd-3503
Marcus
40286, 800+ hours
> On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>
>
> The wire I bought was this:
> http://www.summitracing.com/parts/msd-34019
>
> The crimper I bought was this:
> http://www.summitracing.com/parts/msd-35051
> I would really recommend that you for sure have the right crimper, so
> unless you can get these dies for your existing crimper, just buy
> the right one.
>
> The terminals and boots I bought were these:
> http://www.summitracing.com/parts/msd-8852
> Might be good to stock up on these because with some bulk wire you
> can then be good for years.
>
> I do think I cut some of the terminal boots off a little on
> length on my RV-10, so just compare them to the ones that came
> with the ignition and if they seem too long, use a razor knife and
> shorten them a tiny bit. Otherwise, they are the same thing.
>
> These are the wire separators:
> https://www.summitracing.com/parts/msd-8841
> Very handy for making a neat installation.
>
> The plugs to use on the RV-10 are these IK27 plugs: (I've
> also used IK24's and they work great too)
> https://www.amazon.com/Denso-IK27-Iridium-Power-Spark/dp/B000CIY4FM/ref=
sr_1_1?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1489672354&sr=1-1&keywords=IK27+De
nso
>
> On the RV-140 with the IO-390 I needed the long reach plugs.
> https://www.amazon.com/Denso-IKH27-Iridium-Power-Spark/dp/B000M6URAA
> (Never forget the "H" on the IO-390)
> The IO-540 uses ones without the H.
>
> For coils, there are similar coils out there from Nology, but
> you have to beware of them. It's very important to get the
> proper ohm coil and the coil that Klaus uses is customized.
> He does use a stock part number from the company that makes them
> in Germany, but, the lug on them is female when they come from
> the factory. He has the lugs made specially for his coils and
> gets them pressed in somehow. So I would highly recommend
> that you just get the coils from Klaus, and always keep one
> as a spare.
>
> On my RV-14 site I did do some photos of the wire install.
> Nothing too spectacular. It looks like I never did do a write-up
> on my wire replacement on the RV-10 or I would have posted all
> of this there.
>
> Tim
>
>> On 3/16/2017 6:15 AM, rvdave wrote:
>>
>> ...so I replaced all of the wires. Pretty easy and convenient to do with b
ulk wire and the right crimper...
>>
>>
>> Tim,
>> Where can you get the bulk wire, fittings, and crimper?
>>
>> --------
>> Dave Ford
>> RV6 for sale
>> RV10 building
>> Cadillac, MI
>>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Any issues with VHF interference? |
I have an issue where my GS needle moves erratically when I'm flying an ILS
in wet clouds or rain. I'm guessing that means I have a static problem
(though the localizer and comm radios are fine). Anyone have a similar
issue and/or recommendations? I heard of a few people installing static
wicks, but it doesn't seem to be too common. Thanks...
-Rob
--
Rob Kochman
RV-10 Flying since March 2011
Woodinville, WA
http://kochman.net/N819K
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)MSN.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Any issues with VHF interference? |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________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Any issues with VHF interference? |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
Been a long time since I heard of that problem! Solutions typically
point to grounding problems ..... coax connections or antenna
installation .... or both.
Linn
On 3/16/2017 11:36 PM, Rob Kochman wrote:
> I have an issue where my GS needle moves erratically when I'm flying
> an ILS in wet clouds or rain. I'm guessing that means I have a static
> problem (though the localizer and comm radios are fine). Anyone have a
> similar issue and/or recommendations? I heard of a few people
> installing static wicks, but it doesn't seem to be too common. Thanks...
>
> -Rob
>
>
> --
> Rob Kochman
> RV-10 Flying since March 2011
> Woodinville, WA
> http://kochman.net/N819K
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
"Over 900 hours, and would never put a traditional mag on my engine
based on all the issues I hear about them."
That's a joke, right? (no answer requested)
You guys do understand that threads like this scare the crap out of guys
like me?
I'm always interested in the latest tech, especially if performance
enhancement is part of it. But reliability, availability and
serviceability (RAS) are high up on my priority list. Seems like that's
in place for electronic ignition *IF* one takes the time and assumes
responsibility for staying on top of the manufacturer and the user
community. And that flexibility is why experimental work is so great.
But RAS is certainly a characteristic of the old magneto technology.
They need to be maintained but the path to high RAS is well trodden and
all that.
Seriously, this is a great thread! I'm thinking about Iridium top plugs
again and will consider a new, perhaps home fabbed ignition harness.
Bill 'doing a precautionary swap-out of my original Slicks for rebuilts
at 800+ hours' Watson
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Combs <jiminlexky(at)gmail.com> |
Questions for the group:
I am getting close to the 2000 hour point on my IO-540-C4B5 and am looking
at options:
(1) Replace with a new Lycoming from Vans (47K)
(2) Replace with a Titan X540 engine from ECI (44K)
(3) Purchase an overhauled engine from ???
(4) Overhaul it myself. I have replaced cylinders and overhauled
automotive engines but not a Lycoming.
Any comments on any specific option?
Thanks, Jim Combs
N312F - Flying 1000+ Hours over a 6 year period
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Miller <gengrumpy(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhaul - New |
Jim,
I hope that you follow Mike Busch on engine care and maintenance.
The 2000 point is n/a if you do the things that he recommends, and do the overhaul
based on condition.
Google him up and read his articles on TBO overhauls, care and routine maintenance.
grumpy
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Jim Combs wrote:
>
>
> Questions for the group:
>
> I am getting close to the 2000 hour point on my IO-540-C4B5 and am looking at
options:
>
> (1) Replace with a new Lycoming from Vans (47K)
>
> (2) Replace with a Titan X540 engine from ECI (44K)
>
> (3) Purchase an overhauled engine from ???
>
> (4) Overhaul it myself. I have replaced cylinders and overhauled automotive
engines but not a Lycoming.
>
> Any comments on any specific option?
>
> Thanks, Jim Combs
> N312F - Flying 1000+ Hours over a 6 year period
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Any issues with VHF interference? |
I would definitely explore the grounding/shielding integrity before trying
static wicks. My Mooney has a cat whisker VOR antenna on top of the tail,
with no static wicks, flying almost identical approach speeds to the RV-10,
and has never had a glideslope or VOR problem in any precip. While I
generally fly approaches for real at 90-100 kts, I have practiced upwards
of 150 kts without any receiver problems.
Haven't had my RV in enough precip to find such an issue..haven't done any
real IFR in it yet, but my two Archer wingtip VOR antennas seem to be
performing very well.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Linn Walters wrote:
> Been a long time since I heard of that problem! Solutions typically point
> to grounding problems ..... coax connections or antenna installation ....
> or both.
> Linn
>
> On 3/16/2017 11:36 PM, Rob Kochman wrote:
>
> I have an issue where my GS needle moves erratically when I'm flying an
> ILS in wet clouds or rain. I'm guessing that means I have a static problem
> (though the localizer and comm radios are fine). Anyone have a similar
> issue and/or recommendations? I heard of a few people installing static
> wicks, but it doesn't seem to be too common. Thanks...
>
> -Rob
>
>
> --
> Rob Kochman
> RV-10 Flying since March 2011
> Woodinville, WA
> http://kochman.net/N819K
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Date: 03/16/17
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
I really do wonder about such statements. I've only 1900 hours over 44
years flying behind single engine aircraft with magnetos.
Not one absolute failure, ever. A few rentals with some roughness. Slicks,
Bendix, not huge difference.
Electronic ignitions have certain well defined advantages in economy,
power, easy starting. Reliability is yet to be proven. Besides the
Lightspeed discussed in this thread, I have seen an E-Mag/PMag setup have
complete dual mag failure at less than 500 ft AGL after takeoff. I've had
MSD ignition on a car totally fail. They are getting better, but they
certainly do not have the millions of hours of flight that magnetos do,
over 70+ years.
Coil and harness failures in less the 10 years/1000 hours....hmmm.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
> "Over 900 hours, and would never put a traditional mag on my engine based
> on all the issues I hear about them."
>
> That's a joke, right? (no answer requested)
>
> You guys do understand that threads like this scare the crap out of guys
> like me?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhaul - New |
Depends on the availability of quality overhaulers within reasonable
distance.
Sure, you can do it yourself. There are a lot of pitfalls. Lycoming doesn't
make all the information available in one place.
While they have done a little updating to the overhaul manual, there are
still 1000+ service bulletins that you have to see if they apply.
There have been a lot of parts changes over the years to extend TBO, etc.
I've done a few engines, partly due to economic reasons at the time.
If you supply the core engine, you should be able to get a quality overhaul
for well under $40K.
You can also look at Van Bortel and a couple others that offer exchange
engines for a claimed $300 over invoice.
http://www.airpowerinc.com/productcart/pc/engines.asp?searchParm=IO-540-D4A5&catID=33
That gets you a factory overhauled engine for $37K
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 6:55 AM, Jim Combs wrote:
>
> Questions for the group:
>
> I am getting close to the 2000 hour point on my IO-540-C4B5 and am looking
> at options:
>
> (1) Replace with a new Lycoming from Vans (47K)
>
> (2) Replace with a Titan X540 engine from ECI (44K)
>
> (3) Purchase an overhauled engine from ???
>
> (4) Overhaul it myself. I have replaced cylinders and overhauled
> automotive engines but not a Lycoming.
>
> Any comments on any specific option?
>
> Thanks, Jim Combs
> N312F - Flying 1000+ Hours over a 6 year period
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kyle Boatright <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhaul - New |
Faced with needing an IO540, I went with BPE. Too many souls on board for me to
do the rebuild (like I did on the engine for my RV-6). With a good core, your
rebuild price should be in the low '30's. You could do it for <$20k if you
did it yourself.
Another option would be to do the legwork yourself and have a shop or experienced
A&P help with the assembly process.
Some of the dilemma goes back to "How good do you think your core is" and "How
much do you think Lycoming's price reductions will reduce rebuild costs?".
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 9:55 AM, Jim Combs wrote:
>
>
> Questions for the group:
>
> I am getting close to the 2000 hour point on my IO-540-C4B5 and am looking at
options:
>
> (1) Replace with a new Lycoming from Vans (47K)
>
> (2) Replace with a Titan X540 engine from ECI (44K)
>
> (3) Purchase an overhauled engine from ???
>
> (4) Overhaul it myself. I have replaced cylinders and overhauled automotive
engines but not a Lycoming.
>
> Any comments on any specific option?
>
> Thanks, Jim Combs
> N312F - Flying 1000+ Hours over a 6 year period
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | P Reid <rv10flyer(at)live.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Combs <jiminlexky(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhaul - New |
Ok so stupid question: What makes the engine need to be overhauled? I do
50 hour oil changes with oil analysis on each change. Is it a change in
oil analysis showing some sort of abnormal wear and / or cylinder issues?
Never been down this road before.
Jim C
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:03 AM, P Reid wrote:
> If it was me
>
> (5) fly the engine until it needs to be overhauled than (4)
>
>
> Mike Busch is a big advocate that engines can go into 3000+ hours without
> an issue. If flown often- as you have done
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Jim Combs
> *Sent:* Friday, March 17, 2017 6:56 AM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Overhaul - New
>
>
> Questions for the group:
>
>
> I am getting close to the 2000 hour point on my IO-540-C4B5 and am looking
> at options:
>
>
> (1) Replace with a new Lycoming from Vans (47K)
>
>
> (2) Replace with a Titan X540 engine from ECI (44K)
>
>
> (3) Purchase an overhauled engine from ???
>
>
> (4) Overhaul it myself. I have replaced cylinders and overhauled
> automotive engines but not a Lycoming.
>
>
> Any comments on any specific option?
>
>
> Thanks, Jim Combs
>
> N312F - Flying 1000+ Hours over a 6 year period
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
I can't really comment on that tool. I didn't even know it existed. I
myself
don't mind usually when I have to buy a tool. I always look at it as as
cost savings over paying someone else for doing the work. I can tell
you that you'll want to do a great job crimping, no matter which way
you go, and there I think are 2 levels of crimping to these connectors.
One for the conductor and one for the sheath.
Tim
On 3/16/2017 3:06 PM, Marcus Cooper wrote:
> Tim,
> Thanks for the links. Given the rarity I'll probably need to crimp
> connectors on ignition wire, any problem with getting this tool
> instead and save almost $75?
> https://www.summitracing.com/parts/msd-3503
>
> Marcus
> 40286, 800+ hours
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | P Reid <rv10flyer(at)live.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Overhaul - New |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Jim Combs wrote:
> Ok so stupid question: What makes the engine need to be overhauled? I do 50 hour
oil changes with oil analysis on each change. Is it a change in oil analysis
showing some sort of abnormal wear and / or cylinder issues?
>
>
It really is a judgement call. Sometimes compressions will get poor, sometimes
oil consumption will go up. Fortunately it is rare to have a catastrophic failure,
but the odds probably increase a bit as you go further and further past TBO.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467426#467426
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhaul - New |
Usually it's exactly what Bob mentions below. Many of the 'other' parts are
just IRAN (Inspect/Repair/as necessary) during an overhaul anyway. Usually
the crank/cam/case/accessory gears, etc.. all get re-used themselves. Same
with pushrods, conrods, tappets, plungers, etc..
Engines that are often flown frequently outlast engines that sit (especially
on the top end).
Cheers,
Stein
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Turner
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 4:43 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Overhaul - New
Jim Combs wrote:
> Ok so stupid question: What makes the engine need to be overhauled?
> I do 50 hour oil changes with oil analysis on each change. Is it a
> change in oil analysis showing some sort of abnormal wear and / or
> cylinder issues?
>
>
It really is a judgement call. Sometimes compressions will get poor,
sometimes oil consumption will go up. Fortunately it is rare to have a
catastrophic failure, but the odds probably increase a bit as you go further
and further past TBO.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467426#467426
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Overhaul - New |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
I've never been down that road either but I intend to follow Busch's
advice and consider 2000 hours just a milestone.
Given that you've flown regularly and probably put most/all the hours on
it personally, you would seem to be a prime candidate for taking an
on-condition approach.
Re a DIY overhaul: I attended Lycoming engine school, both classes,
which include an disassembly/assembly hands-on lab . On one hand, I
know I could do a decent job given patience and time. On the other I've
gained great respect for those individuals that DIY. It's no where near
the size and scope of kit building but there's less room for mistakes
and carelessness. The Lycoming class gave me the confidence for self
maintenance and management. If I were to do a DIY, the class would be a
prerequisite but I'm not going down that path. I recommend that class
for owner/self maintainers and DIY wannabes.
Whoever said, "the information required for a Lycoming overhaul is not
all in one place" knows their stuff, amen.
Bill "I'm planning on getting well past 2,000 hours BO" Watson
On 3/17/2017 10:00 AM, John Miller wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> I hope that you follow Mike Busch on engine care and maintenance.
>
> The 2000 point is n/a if you do the things that he recommends, and do the overhaul
based on condition.
>
> Google him up and read his articles on TBO overhauls, care and routine maintenance.
>
> grumpy
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dlm <dlm34077(at)gmail.com> |
Mike Busch is correct; TBO is just a number; it is the usage and the
accumulation of engine parameters over time( i.e. oil
consumption, compression etc.). The engine in my Glastar was a new O360A4M
and I sold the aircraft at 400 hours. I keep in touch with the purchaser
and it is still going strong (with possibly a little top end work) at 3500
hours. He uses it to troll daily for swordfish and tuna over the Pacific at
low power settings. I put a new certificated IO540D4A5 from Van's my RV10.
Due to some experiences I have had with shops over the years, you may want
to run the engine until conditions indicate "end of life" and negotiate for
a new or new limits overhaul from a reputable outfit like Lycoming or
similar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Stark <jerry_stark(at)prodigy.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhaul - New |
FYI:=C2-If you really need to rebuild it I would consider talking with Ba
rret In Tulsa.=C2- Not that much higher cost but they do a better balance
, in my opinion, check with them. Also they do work for a few aerobatic pil
ots.=C2- People notice that my engine runs very smoothly at low rpm. Very
satisfied!=C2-A lot depends on you, when you think "you" need to do the
rebuild.=C2-
From: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com>
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 8:18 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Overhaul - New
Lycomings are dirt simple. With the assembly and parts manual I'd overhaul
it myself .... the hardest thing is splitting the case.
However, I wouldn't touch it just because it has 2000 hours on it. =C2-If
the engine has good oil pressure and compression .... fly it.The best thin
g you can do for your engine is use it often.IMHO!LINN
Sent from Samsung tablet cruising on the majesty Of The Seas.
-------- Original message --------
>From Jim Combs <jiminlexky(at)gmail.com>
Date: 03/17/2017 9:55 AM (GMT-05:00)
To rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject RV10-List: Overhaul - New
Questions for the group:
I am getting close to the 2000 hour point on my IO-540-C4B5 and am looking
at options:
(1) Replace with a new Lycoming from Vans (47K)
(2) Replace with a Titan X540 engine from ECI (44K)
(3) Purchase an overhauled engine from ???
(4) Overhaul it myself.=C2- I have replaced cylinders and overhauled auto
motive engines but not a Lycoming.
Any comments on any specific option?
Thanks, Jim CombsN312F - Flying 1000+ Hours over a 6 year period
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)MSN.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhaul - New |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhaul - New |
No question BPA does superb overhauls. There are a dozen or so top notch
rebuilders around the country. Mine was produced by Lycon Engines in
Visalia, CA. I get comments from almost all pilots who hear it taxi by or
idle at how smooth it sounds. I suggest that quality shops that are within
say 3 hours flying distance are a bit easier to work with, because of
proximity, they are probably familiar with your climate and elevation and
can tune to that. Not to mention that if the unusual problem crops up, it
is easier for all to get the builder and the engine back together to
resolve the issue.
I will also suggest that a shop that does nothing but engines is going to
do a better job that is more likely to reach TBO than one you do yourself.
You will get some warranty, something you can't provide to yourself. I have
the knowledge, license and experience to do an overhaul, but if I have the
time and money, I would rather one of the expert shops do the job.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Danny Riggs wrote:
> I have a Barrett IO-540. If you already have an engine it's a lot cheaper
> to rebuild as I've discussed that several times with Rhonda. I'm sold on
> their engines. They are very smooth and sound different than any others.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 19, 2017, at 12:02 AM, Jerry Stark wrote:
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhaul - New |
Amen to all of this.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 19, 2017, at 8:00 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> No question BPA does superb overhauls. There are a dozen or so top notch r
ebuilders around the country. Mine was produced by Lycon Engines in Visalia,
CA. I get comments from almost all pilots who hear it taxi by or idle at ho
w smooth it sounds. I suggest that quality shops that are within say 3 hours
flying distance are a bit easier to work with, because of proximity, they a
re probably familiar with your climate and elevation and can tune to that. N
ot to mention that if the unusual problem crops up, it is easier for all to g
et the builder and the engine back together to resolve the issue.
> I will also suggest that a shop that does nothing but engines is going to d
o a better job that is more likely to reach TBO than one you do yourself. Yo
u will get some warranty, something you can't provide to yourself. I have th
e knowledge, license and experience to do an overhaul, but if I have the tim
e and money, I would rather one of the expert shops do the job.
>
> -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
>
>> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Danny Riggs wrote:
>> I have a Barrett IO-540. If you already have an engine it's a lot cheaper
to rebuild as I've discussed that several times with Rhonda. I'm sold on th
eir engines. They are very smooth and sound different than any others.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 19, 2017, at 12:02 AM, Jerry Stark wrote
:
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <tom.on.the.road(at)juno.com> |
I use a door seal like yours on my Lancair ES. 10 years since build,
still functioning well (my decible level inside is equal to or less than
many who are using the inflatible seals). Not to mention, mine costs
less than $20.
Tom
____________________________________________________________
How To Remove Eye Bags & Lip Lines Fast (Watch)
Womans Weekly
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/58d034291da9d342951a7st01vuc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dlm <dlm34077(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | fuel injection servo |
I have noticed that the servo arm for mixture does not move as
effortlessly as it did, it sounds like I need a repair. Any suggestions,
prices, vendors, etc.?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel injection servo |
I would check your control cable first. Disconnect from the servo and move the
mixture control and see how easily it moves.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 22, 2017, at 8:39 PM, dlm wrote:
>
> I have noticed that the servo arm for mixture does not move as effortlessly as
it did, it sounds like I need a repair. Any suggestions, prices, vendors, etc.?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Aerosport Side Vents - Rear Interior Panel |
I've spent the better part of 6 hours trying to fit one side vent on my
interior panels so I can complete my W&B.
In the process I've invented cuss words that even a sailor at sea would be
ashamed of saying if there were a shipmate standing near.
The problem is the duct that goes between the Vans inlet that ducts the air
to the interior panel vent cover. First, it doesn't sit flat against the
backside of the skin because of the rivets and doubler holding Vans vent.
So every attempt to seat it is different from the previous attempt. And
second, the duct repeatedly falls off the backside of the interior panel
every time I try to work it into position.
I have to be the problem because I haven't heard any complaints from other
folks getting these things to fit.
I've notched the duct as described in the installation documents, so I
don't believe that is the problem.
Has anyone found a technique, tip, or even modification to make this as
simple as it appears it should be?
Thanks,
Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Trollinger <john(at)trollingers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aerosport Side Vents - Rear Interior Panel |
I had the same issues you did.. I had to cut down the duct to get it to fit
at all.. I do not remember if I just threw away the vents or finally got it
to work..
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> I've spent the better part of 6 hours trying to fit one side vent on my
> interior panels so I can complete my W&B.
>
> In the process I've invented cuss words that even a sailor at sea would be
> ashamed of saying if there were a shipmate standing near.
>
> The problem is the duct that goes between the Vans inlet that ducts the
> air to the interior panel vent cover. First, it doesn't sit flat against
> the backside of the skin because of the rivets and doubler holding Vans
> vent. So every attempt to seat it is different from the previous
> attempt. And second, the duct repeatedly falls off the backside of the
> interior panel every time I try to work it into position.
>
> I have to be the problem because I haven't heard any complaints from other
> folks getting these things to fit.
>
> I've notched the duct as described in the installation documents, so I
> don't believe that is the problem.
>
> Has anyone found a technique, tip, or even modification to make this as
> simple as it appears it should be?
>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aerosport Side Vents - Rear Interior Panel |
I just did my side vent installation back in February. The vent installed
pretty easily, no real issues.
The rivets went around the vent itself, didn't interfere with the placement
Here are some pictures I took of the vent and bar installation. Hope it
helps.
-
https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/mWdKklA5kLJAEkJyg4QheUfAIHRvp7aCVFwPn8bJHQu
-
https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/Sr85sclZh1bSEBgXqXiSxShNQoLG2phb1pNBCArermD
-
https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/fQ4HeCFpMUcd9R8ABUKpw3A3L08LrhE9Z75UDuRVBaY
-
https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/3reQEUEuPeoQYW3DpEAnkDQQe6RkpKqsahB4knkpvfQ
-
https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/2Kur6MoQ1dR4dahfw7k1Ky07NnexcbxlFNXlzYGZHXb
Vernon
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> I've spent the better part of 6 hours trying to fit one side vent on my
> interior panels so I can complete my W&B.
>
> In the process I've invented cuss words that even a sailor at sea would be
> ashamed of saying if there were a shipmate standing near.
>
> The problem is the duct that goes between the Vans inlet that ducts the
> air to the interior panel vent cover. First, it doesn't sit flat against
> the backside of the skin because of the rivets and doubler holding Vans
> vent. So every attempt to seat it is different from the previous
> attempt. And second, the duct repeatedly falls off the backside of the
> interior panel every time I try to work it into position.
>
> I have to be the problem because I haven't heard any complaints from other
> folks getting these things to fit.
>
> I've notched the duct as described in the installation documents, so I
> don't believe that is the problem.
>
> Has anyone found a technique, tip, or even modification to make this as
> simple as it appears it should be?
>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
>
--
Vernon Franklin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dlm <dlm34077(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | control cables and a tip |
In June of 2015, I contacted Aircraft Spruce and it was suggested that they
could get me some Vans customized control cables for the throttle quadrant.
These cables had Teflon cores with a melt point of 650F. I purchased a set
for about $550 in June 2015. I awaited an opportune time to install.
Although I did not know it at the time I was told later that the warranty
was for 1 year. I installed them in April 2016 when the engine was off the
aircraft. Throttle and prop cables are working fine but the mixture started
jamming in February 2017 and jammed completely in March 2017 (@104TT). I
contacted Spruce and was told that they were out of warranty; their
purchasing people promised to call and provide the contact at the factory
but never did. I was able to get the number from another source and called
ACS products. I sent them the old mixture cable and they "fixed" it and
returned it to me without charge. The ACS cables with Teflon cores seemed
to be a good product. Their products are available through Wicks or direct.
We will see how the Teflon cores handle the heat between the aft baffling
and the firewall which only goes higher after shutdown. I always try to
remember to open the oil door after shutdown to vent extra heat.
As an addition to my previous TIPs sheet
It was suggested by an IA that some of these engine shops do and charge
what they please regardless of instructions as long as the total invoice
after insurance reimbursement will make the extra charges uneconomic for
litigation purposes. "You always learn more than you ever wanted to know"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David J. Fritzsche" <dfritz(at)bpgsim.com> |
I am nearing the point when I will need to paint the interior of my
fuselage. Looking at the paint options, I find the Stewart Systems
water based paint to be attractive from a safety perspective. Has
anyone used their product, and if so what was your experience, both
positive and negative.
Dave Fritzsche
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Interior Paint |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
I've only used a few Stewart products ..... They're OK. However I went
with Zolatone. It's water based also.
Linn
On 3/25/2017 12:34 AM, David J. Fritzsche wrote:
>
>
> I am nearing the point when I will need to paint the interior of my
> fuselage. Looking at the paint options, I find the Stewart Systems
> water based paint to be attractive from a safety perspective. Has
> anyone used their product, and if so what was your experience, both
> positive and negative.
>
> Dave Fritzsche
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> 03/24/17
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Chrome door hinges |
| From: | "whodja" <whodja(at)gmail.com> |
Any feedback on chrome door hinges. Does anyone have a chrome shop recommendation?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467591#467591
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Chrome door hinges |
I hadn't thought about chrome, but on a similar note, are there CAD plating
shops around which will do them for a reasonable price?
-----Original Message-----
From: whodja
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 9:48 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Chrome door hinges
Any feedback on chrome door hinges. Does anyone have a chrome shop
recommendation?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467591#467591
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Chrome door hinges |
Or - just buff polish the aluminum handles. For me polished aluminum is the preferred
approach for airplanes. A once a year touch up is all that is needed.
Carl
> On Mar 25, 2017, at 9:54 AM,
wrote:
>
>
> I hadn't thought about chrome, but on a similar note, are there CAD plating shops
around which will do them for a reasonable price?
>
> -----Original Message----- From: whodja
> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 9:48 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Chrome door hinges
>
>
> Any feedback on chrome door hinges. Does anyone have a chrome shop recommendation?
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467591#467591
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Chrome door hinges |
Sorry - I hit send before reading hinges instead of handles.
Carl
> On Mar 25, 2017, at 10:41 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote:
>
> Or - just buff polish the aluminum handles. For me polished aluminum is the
preferred approach for airplanes. A once a year touch up is all that is needed.
>
> Carl
>
>> On Mar 25, 2017, at 9:54 AM,
wrote:
>>
>>
>> I hadn't thought about chrome, but on a similar note, are there CAD plating
shops around which will do them for a reasonable price?
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: whodja
>> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 9:48 AM
>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RV10-List: Chrome door hinges
>>
>>
>> Any feedback on chrome door hinges. Does anyone have a chrome shop recommendation?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467591#467591
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chrome door hinges |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
Went to our local plating shop ..... too expensive. Powder coated two
sets with HF gun.
Linn
On 3/25/2017 9:48 AM, whodja wrote:
>
> Any feedback on chrome door hinges. Does anyone have a chrome shop recommendation?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467591#467591
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | P Reid <rv10flyer(at)live.com> |
I painted my complete (exterior) plane in my garage using Stewart Systems. 5 years
later still holding up very well. I am sure the interior is equally good.
Pros-
support is outstanding
Waterbased wise a good product
Cons
Mostly my skill I gather but needed to be applied lighter than I would have liked
due to running when applied per instructions and recoating when instructed,
time between coats needed to be extended to resolve issues. Still more coats
(aka time) needed than spray painted oil based paints.
If I did the paint again, I would more than likely use their product again, probably
use a different spray gun too.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David J. Fritzsche
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 9:34 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Interior Paint
-->
I am nearing the point when I will need to paint the interior of my fuselage.
Looking at the paint options, I find the Stewart Systems water based paint to
be attractive from a safety perspective. Has anyone used their product, and if
so what was your experience, both positive and negative.
Dave Fritzsche
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chrome door hinges |
| From: | "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net> |
whodja wrote:
> Any feedback on chrome door hinges. Does anyone have a chrome shop recommendation?
There is a Chrome Shop on the West side of Atlanta that I used for my steps. Good
work, not cheap, and it took a month.
John
--------
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467626#467626
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net> |
Installed the aircraft door seals on the door last sunday. It took two of use to
get the door to close. worse part was getting the silicone adhesive off the
door frame. Very slow with a razor blade.
Today took test flight. The door seal compressed and door opens and closes nicely
without ant trimming. Seal compresses well.
Only problem is cold air comes in at the top at the hinges. Any ideas hoe wo best
block this air flow?
Alan
N668G
> On Mar 20, 2017, at 3:56 PM, tom.on.the.road(at)juno.com wrote:
>
>
> I use a door seal like yours on my Lancair ES. 10 years since build,
> still functioning well (my decible level inside is equal to or less than
> many who are using the inflatible seals). Not to mention, mine costs
> less than $20.
>
> Tom
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> How To Remove Eye Bags & Lip Lines Fast (Watch)
> Womans Weekly
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/58d034291da9d342951a7st01vuc
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
You have to fabricate a cover over the door hinge at where the door
comes down, so the seal has something to compress against. I used scrap
fiberglass from trimming the window openings. Cut to fit, then bonded
with some super fill.
On 3/26/2017 9:41 AM, Alan Mekler MD wrote:
>
> Installed the aircraft door seals on the door last sunday. It took two of use
to get the door to close. worse part was getting the silicone adhesive off the
door frame. Very slow with a razor blade.
> Today took test flight. The door seal compressed and door opens and closes nicely
without ant trimming. Seal compresses well.
> Only problem is cold air comes in at the top at the hinges. Any ideas hoe wo
best block this air flow?
> Alan
> N668G
>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 3:56 PM, tom.on.the.road(at)juno.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> I use a door seal like yours on my Lancair ES. 10 years since build,
>> still functioning well (my decible level inside is equal to or less than
>> many who are using the inflatible seals). Not to mention, mine costs
>> less than $20.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> How To Remove Eye Bags & Lip Lines Fast (Watch)
>> Womans Weekly
>> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/58d034291da9d342951a7st01vuc
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | W&B Configuration |
I'm about to zero in on having this thing on the scales in the next couple of days.
Reading the FAA circular, they mention that the sumo should be full. (12 Qts in
my case). Vans Section 5 is a little more vague.
I have a hard time seeing myself ever filling the sump with 12, just to watch it
get pumped right overboard and settle in around 8-9 on the stick.
What have you all done with regards to sump capacity when running your W&B? I'm
tempted to run it with full lines and 8 on the stick.
But I'm just curious to know what most of you have done with yours?
Sent from my iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | P Reid <rv10flyer(at)live.com> |
| Subject: | W&B Configuration |
I thought through how I would fly the plane (aka 8qts) and did the W&B based on
that assumption.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillip Perry
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 7:07 PM
Subject: RV10-List: W&B Configuration
I'm about to zero in on having this thing on the scales in the next couple of days.
Reading the FAA circular, they mention that the sumo should be full. (12 Qts in
my case). Vans Section 5 is a little more vague.
I have a hard time seeing myself ever filling the sump with 12, just to watch it
get pumped right overboard and settle in around 8-9 on the stick.
What have you all done with regards to sump capacity when running your W&B? I'm
tempted to run it with full lines and 8 on the stick.
But I'm just curious to know what most of you have done with yours?
Sent from my iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: W&B Configuration |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Do it on a measured 8 qts. The quantity to full is known. You likely
will run it between 6 and 8 qts, depending on whether you have an
air/oil separator or not.
You can then prepare a separate W&B with full sump.
I also recommend you weigh it with fuel tanks dry, because you won't
know what the exact full quantity is, much less its weight that depends
on temperature.
On 3/26/2017 7:06 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> I'm about to zero in on having this thing on the scales in the next couple of
days.
>
> Reading the FAA circular, they mention that the sumo should be full. (12 Qts
in my case). Vans Section 5 is a little more vague.
>
> I have a hard time seeing myself ever filling the sump with 12, just to watch
it get pumped right overboard and settle in around 8-9 on the stick.
>
> What have you all done with regards to sump capacity when running your W&B?
I'm tempted to run it with full lines and 8 on the stick.
>
> But I'm just curious to know what most of you have done with yours?
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chrome door hinges |
| From: | "AirMike" <Mikeabel(at)Pacbell.net> |
I highly recommend Sherm's in Sacramento CA for chrome plating.
Superb quality and excellent to deal with in all respects. Send detailed
pics and they will give you a quote.
--------
See you OSH '17
Q/B - flying 7 yrs.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467660#467660
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: W&B Configuration |
I do W&Bs in the most common empty configuration. So I'd weigh it with 8
or 9 qts.
If you want the data for "just in case", weigh it with 8 and then add 2
quarts. That should be enough to see the weight on a decent scale. Record
all your weights again and you'll have the data to extract the exact arm of
the oil. It's easy on a spreadsheet.
Same goes for pilot, pax, and baggage. Plop down in the seat while it's
still on the scales and you get the most accurate arm for your own self.
Put 50# in the center of the baggage compartment, and you can get that arm
too.
Another thing to consider is to make the datum an easy-to-find spot, like
the wing leading edge or the instrument panel or the front of the door.
Then when you want to actually measure something important some day, you
don't have to mess with some imaginary point out in front of the plane.
--Dave
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> I'm about to zero in on having this thing on the scales in the next couple
> of days.
>
> Reading the FAA circular, they mention that the sumo should be full. (12
> Qts in my case). Vans Section 5 is a little more vague.
>
> I have a hard time seeing myself ever filling the sump with 12, just to
> watch it get pumped right overboard and settle in around 8-9 on the stick.
>
> What have you all done with regards to sump capacity when running your
> W&B? I'm tempted to run it with full lines and 8 on the stick.
>
> But I'm just curious to know what most of you have done with yours?
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <lewgall(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: W&B Configuration |
Hey guys,
Just curious here. Did I understand correctly that heating fuel changes
the weight ... ?? If so, could someone explain why that would be?
Thanks, =93 Lew
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)MSN.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: W&B Configuration |
V2hlbiB5b3UgYWRkIGhlYXQgZm9yIGFsbCBwcmFjdGljYWwgcHVycG9zZXMgaXQgYWRkcyBtYXNz
IHRvIHRoZSBvYmplY3QgKGxpcXVpZCBmdWVsKS4NClRoZXJlIGlzIGEgZm9ybXVsYSB0aGF0IHNo
b3dzIHRoaXMgYnV0IHNpbmNlIG15IGlQYWQgZG9lc24ndCBkbyAicG93ZXJzIiBJIHdvbid0IHJl
cGVhdCBpdCBoZXJlLiBJbiBhY3R1YWxpdHkgdGhlIGFkZGVkIG1hc3MgaXMgc28gc21hbGwgYXMg
dG8gYmUgb2YgdmlydHVhbGx5IG5vIGVhc2lseSBtZWFzdXJhYmxlIGNvbnNlcXVlbmNlLiBIZWF0
aW5nIGNhdXNlcyBhbiBlYXNpbHkgZGlzY2VybmVkIGV4cGFuc2lvbiBob3dldmVyLg0KDQpTZW50
IGZyb20gbXkgaVBhZA0KDQpPbiBNYXIgMjYsIDIwMTcsIGF0IDExOjExIFBNLCAibGV3Z2FsbEBj
aGFydGVyLm5ldDxtYWlsdG86bGV3Z2FsbEBjaGFydGVyLm5ldD4iIDxsZXdnYWxsQGNoYXJ0ZXIu
bmV0PG1haWx0bzpsZXdnYWxsQGNoYXJ0ZXIubmV0Pj4gd3JvdGU6DQoNCkhleSBndXlzLA0KDQpK
dXN0IGN1cmlvdXMgaGVyZS4gIERpZCBJIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgY29ycmVjdGx5IHRoYXQgaGVhdGlu
ZyBmdWVsIGNoYW5nZXMgdGhlIHdlaWdodCAuLi4gPz8gIElmIHNvLCBjb3VsZCBzb21lb25lIGV4
cGxhaW4gd2h5IHRoYXQgd291bGQgYmU/DQoNClRoYW5rcywg4oCTIExldw0K
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: W&B Configuration |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Lew Gallagher wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> Just curious here. Did I understand correctly that heating fuel changes the
weight ... ?? If so, could someone explain why that would be?
>
> Thanks, Lew
Nearly all materials (water being different) expand when heated. So one gallon
of gas at some temperature might weigh exactly 6 pounds. Heat it up, it expands
and overflows the container. There is now less (by weight, or number of molecules)
gas in the one gallon container. In real life the aluminum fuel tank will
also expand, but it's an order of magnitude less than the expansion of the
gas. This is one reason jets (that carry huge amounts of gas) usually keep track
of the actual weight.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467666#467666
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <lewgall(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: W&B Configuration |
Volume, obviously yes. Weight? Sounds like "Trump science" to me ;-)
Keep trying, not sure I believe it yet. Fuel consumption or
expansion/contraction changing COG; changing volume with overflow; density,
I can understand. Maybe that's the deal -- does the expansion with heat
shift the weight, not change the weight? As I said, it doesn't really
matter, just curious.
Later, - Lew
Nearly all materials (water being different) expand when heated. So one
gallon of gas at some temperature might weigh exactly 6 pounds. Heat it up,
it expands and overflows the container. There is now less (by weight, or
number of molecules) gas in the one gallon container. In real life the
aluminum fuel tank will also expand, but it's an order of magnitude less
than the expansion of the gas. This is one reason jets (that carry huge
amounts of gas) usually keep track of the actual weight.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: W&B Configuration |
Don't worry Lew, it's just that many people are better pilots that they are scientists.
It is true that the fuel will expand when it is warm. But considering
there will be the same number of molecules, they will not weigh differently when
they are warm. Yes, the fuel tanks will overflow if they are all the way
full to the top, so warm fuel would weigh less in that situation If it overflowed
some of the fuel. But, if you have your fuel tanks filled to 2 inches from
the top, on a cold day, and then you take your plane out on a warm day, and the
fuel is up to the top, it will not weigh less. It may in fact weigh a minuscule
amount more, due to additional dissolved gases. The comment about Jets calculating
fuel in pounds is accurate, but that would not simply be because fuel
weighs less when it is warm. It would have more to do with that it has less
volume when it is warm , for the same given amount of fuel in molecules. So you
are not going crazy.
Either way, the warm fuel versus cold fuel is a small enough number has to be pretty
much insignificant when calculating your weight and balance. Sure, it may
weigh a few pounds more if you feel to the exact same spot on a cold day as
on a warm day, but I don't think a weight and balance needs to be calculated to
that Precision.
Tim
> On Mar 27, 2017, at 7:14 AM, wrote:
>
>
> Volume, obviously yes. Weight? Sounds like "Trump science" to me ;-) Keep
trying, not sure I believe it yet. Fuel consumption or expansion/contraction
changing COG; changing volume with overflow; density, I can understand. Maybe
that's the deal -- does the expansion with heat shift the weight, not change
the weight? As I said, it doesn't really matter, just curious.
>
> Later, - Lew
>
>
>
> Nearly all materials (water being different) expand when heated. So one gallon
of gas at some temperature might weigh exactly 6 pounds. Heat it up, it expands
and overflows the container. There is now less (by weight, or number of molecules)
gas in the one gallon container. In real life the aluminum fuel tank
will also expand, but it's an order of magnitude less than the expansion of the
gas. This is one reason jets (that carry huge amounts of gas) usually keep track
of the actual weight.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: W&B Configuration |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
The weight per gallon of avgas varies approx. 0.1% per degree C.
So at 15C it is 6.01 lbs per gal. At -40 it is 6.41 lbs/gal, and at 35C
it is around 5.88 lb/gal. A swing of .53 lbs/gal. That would be
somewhere in the 32 lb range for full tanks. Yes, it is mostly very
close to the C.G. I wouldn't call it insignificant. Yes, the difference
between 10 and 30 C is around a 2% change, not big. Then you have
difference between individual tanks that may be a gallon or two, for
another 12 lb difference.
However, why worry about it when it is easy to weigh the plane with
tanks empty?
I don't advocate calculating weight to a couple decimals, nor c.g. by
more than about 1 decimal, but you should be aware that if you are
fueling in Phoenix in the summer, that 120 lbs of baggage will affect
c.g. more than it will at International Falls in Jan.
On 3/27/2017 5:53 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
> C.G.
> Don't worry Lew, it's just that many people are better pilots that they are scientists.
It is true that the fuel will expand when it is warm. But considering
there will be the same number of molecules, they will not weigh differently
when they are warm. Yes, the fuel tanks will overflow if they are all the way
full to the top, so warm fuel would weigh less in that situation If it overflowed
some of the fuel. But, if you have your fuel tanks filled to 2 inches from
the top, on a cold day, and then you take your plane out on a warm day, and
the fuel is up to the top, it will not weigh less. It may in fact weigh a minuscule
amount more, due to additional dissolved gases. The comment about Jets
calculating fuel in pounds is accurate, but that would not simply be because
fuel weighs less when it is warm. It would have more to do with that it has less
volume when it is warm , for the same given amount of fuel in molecules. So
you are not going crazy.
> Either way, the warm fuel versus cold fuel is a small enough number has to be
pretty much insignificant when calculating your weight and balance. Sure, it
may weigh a few pounds more if you feel to the exact same spot on a cold day as
on a warm day, but I don't think a weight and balance needs to be calculated
to that Precision.
> Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: W&B Configuration |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
As long as you understand that nearly the entire reason that
the fuel has a different "weight" per gallon is that the
actual QUANTITY of fuel molecules in that gallon is less
as it gets warmer, then you're right on. It's a VOLUME
issue, not a weight issue. If you took hot fuel
of a given weight, and cold fuel of a given weight, and
brought them to the same temperature, they would still
weigh the same but have different VOLUMES.
And, I will say that I do consider it to be pretty irrelevant
regarding the weight of fuel, despite the 32lbs of
difference. The reason I say it's irrelevant is because
I know of no person who flies small planes like RV's, who
would calculate their W&B for a given day of flying and
actually compensate for the weight of fuel THAT DAY
based on temperature.
But you're right, just weigh it with the tanks empty, or
if you wish, after adding some fuel and draining everything
but the unusable fuel. In the RV-10/14 the unusable fuel
is also such a small quantity that it really isn't a significant
number for practical purposes. I have flown my tanks to
dry in testing and there is about 1 cup, 2 max, left
in the tank when flown to empty.
So my personal summary is: The weight difference of fuel
is not significant in PRACTICAL terms for anything,
AFTER you have done an accurate airplane weighing. You're
not likely to ever need to consider that added or
decreased weight due to temperature when planning any
flight. And, for practical purposes, in the RV-10/14
models, useable fuel = total fuel, so you don't need to
mark your tanks with a label like "60 Gallons, 59 usable"
or anything like that.
I personally have never, other than during fuel tank
capacity testing, ever flown with less than 5 gallons in
a tank. I think the risk of fuel unporting during
turns in the pattern would be too high if you get much
lower than that.
And, I think weighing with tanks empty is the way to go.
Tim
On 03/27/2017 09:08 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> The weight per gallon of avgas varies approx. 0.1% per degree C.
> So at 15C it is 6.01 lbs per gal. At -40 it is 6.41 lbs/gal, and at 35C
> it is around 5.88 lb/gal. A swing of .53 lbs/gal. That would be
> somewhere in the 32 lb range for full tanks. Yes, it is mostly very
> close to the C.G. I wouldn't call it insignificant. Yes, the difference
> between 10 and 30 C is around a 2% change, not big. Then you have
> difference between individual tanks that may be a gallon or two, for
> another 12 lb difference.
> However, why worry about it when it is easy to weigh the plane with
> tanks empty?
> I don't advocate calculating weight to a couple decimals, nor c.g. by
> more than about 1 decimal, but you should be aware that if you are
> fueling in Phoenix in the summer, that 120 lbs of baggage will affect
> c.g. more than it will at International Falls in Jan.
>
> On 3/27/2017 5:53 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>> C.G.
>> Don't worry Lew, it's just that many people are better pilots that
>> they are scientists. It is true that the fuel will expand when it is
>> warm. But considering there will be the same number of molecules, they
>> will not weigh differently when they are warm. Yes, the fuel tanks
>> will overflow if they are all the way full to the top, so warm fuel
>> would weigh less in that situation If it overflowed some of the fuel.
>> But, if you have your fuel tanks filled to 2 inches from the top, on a
>> cold day, and then you take your plane out on a warm day, and the fuel
>> is up to the top, it will not weigh less. It may in fact weigh a
>> minuscule amount more, due to additional dissolved gases. The comment
>> about Jets calculating fuel in pounds is accurate, but that would not
>> simply be because fuel weighs less when it is warm. It would have more
>> to do with that it has less volume when it is warm , for the same
>> given amount of fuel in molecules. So you are not going crazy.
>> Either way, the warm fuel versus cold fuel is a small enough number
>> has to be pretty much insignificant when calculating your weight and
>> balance. Sure, it may weigh a few pounds more if you feel to the exact
>> same spot on a cold day as on a warm day, but I don't think a weight
>> and balance needs to be calculated to that Precision.
>> Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: W&B Configuration |
This whole discussion cracks me up. The weighing issue is that you have to do it
with empty tanks or full tanks. That's the point made that started the expansion
of fuel when heated discussion. If you use full tanks, the plane is lighter
if the fuel is warm because it's bigger. If you fill it up with cold fuel and
it warms up, the expansion will send fuel out the vents onto the ground, making
the plane lighter. At half tanks it makes no difference in weight, but you
can't weigh at half tanks because you don't know exactly how much fuel you have
to calculate it back out for an accurate empty weight.
The actual best way to get empty weight is to disconnect the fuel line at the engine
and pump it out, leaving the unusable fuel in the tanks.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:14 AM, wrote:
>
>
> Volume, obviously yes. Weight? Sounds like "Trump science" to me ;-) Keep
trying, not sure I believe it yet. Fuel consumption or expansion/contraction
changing COG; changing volume with overflow; density, I can understand. Maybe
that's the deal -- does the expansion with heat shift the weight, not change
the weight? As I said, it doesn't really matter, just curious.
>
> Later, - Lew
>
>
>
> Nearly all materials (water being different) expand when heated. So one gallon
of gas at some temperature might weigh exactly 6 pounds. Heat it up, it expands
and overflows the container. There is now less (by weight, or number of molecules)
gas in the one gallon container. In real life the aluminum fuel tank
will also expand, but it's an order of magnitude less than the expansion of the
gas. This is one reason jets (that carry huge amounts of gas) usually keep track
of the actual weight.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Berck E. Nash" <flyboy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: W&B Configuration |
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> As long as you understand that nearly the entire reason that
> the fuel has a different "weight" per gallon is that the
> actual QUANTITY of fuel molecules in that gallon is less
> as it gets warmer, then you're right on. It's a VOLUME
> issue, not a weight issue. If you took hot fuel
> of a given weight, and cold fuel of a given weight, and
> brought them to the same temperature, they would still
> weigh the same but have different VOLUMES.
Uhm, no. If you take a pound of cold fuel and pound of hot fuel, they're
going to have the same volume *and* weight once you equalize the
temperature. This is one of the many reasons we fuel airliners by weight.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: W&B Configuration |
On the long cross country flights from the West Coast to AirVenture I would
swear the bugs get bigger and their weight becomes a factor as we approach
Wisconsin.
Will need to tweak my W&B formula.
John
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> As long as you understand that nearly the entire reason that
> the fuel has a different "weight" per gallon is that the
> actual QUANTITY of fuel molecules in that gallon is less
> as it gets warmer, then you're right on. It's a VOLUME
> issue, not a weight issue. If you took hot fuel
> of a given weight, and cold fuel of a given weight, and
> brought them to the same temperature, they would still
> weigh the same but have different VOLUMES.
>
> And, I will say that I do consider it to be pretty irrelevant
> regarding the weight of fuel, despite the 32lbs of
> difference. The reason I say it's irrelevant is because
> I know of no person who flies small planes like RV's, who
> would calculate their W&B for a given day of flying and
> actually compensate for the weight of fuel THAT DAY
> based on temperature.
>
> But you're right, just weigh it with the tanks empty, or
> if you wish, after adding some fuel and draining everything
> but the unusable fuel. In the RV-10/14 the unusable fuel
> is also such a small quantity that it really isn't a significant
> number for practical purposes. I have flown my tanks to
> dry in testing and there is about 1 cup, 2 max, left
> in the tank when flown to empty.
>
> So my personal summary is: The weight difference of fuel
> is not significant in PRACTICAL terms for anything,
> AFTER you have done an accurate airplane weighing. You're
> not likely to ever need to consider that added or
> decreased weight due to temperature when planning any
> flight. And, for practical purposes, in the RV-10/14
> models, useable fuel = total fuel, so you don't need to
> mark your tanks with a label like "60 Gallons, 59 usable"
> or anything like that.
>
> I personally have never, other than during fuel tank
> capacity testing, ever flown with less than 5 gallons in
> a tank. I think the risk of fuel unporting during
> turns in the pattern would be too high if you get much
> lower than that.
>
> And, I think weighing with tanks empty is the way to go.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 03/27/2017 09:08 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>>
>> The weight per gallon of avgas varies approx. 0.1% per degree C.
>> So at 15C it is 6.01 lbs per gal. At -40 it is 6.41 lbs/gal, and at 35C
>> it is around 5.88 lb/gal. A swing of .53 lbs/gal. That would be
>> somewhere in the 32 lb range for full tanks. Yes, it is mostly very
>> close to the C.G. I wouldn't call it insignificant. Yes, the difference
>> between 10 and 30 C is around a 2% change, not big. Then you have
>> difference between individual tanks that may be a gallon or two, for
>> another 12 lb difference.
>> However, why worry about it when it is easy to weigh the plane with
>> tanks empty?
>> I don't advocate calculating weight to a couple decimals, nor c.g. by
>> more than about 1 decimal, but you should be aware that if you are
>> fueling in Phoenix in the summer, that 120 lbs of baggage will affect
>> c.g. more than it will at International Falls in Jan.
>>
>> On 3/27/2017 5:53 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>>> C.G.
>>> Don't worry Lew, it's just that many people are better pilots that
>>> they are scientists. It is true that the fuel will expand when it is
>>> warm. But considering there will be the same number of molecules, they
>>> will not weigh differently when they are warm. Yes, the fuel tanks
>>> will overflow if they are all the way full to the top, so warm fuel
>>> would weigh less in that situation If it overflowed some of th
e fuel.
>>> But, if you have your fuel tanks filled to 2 inches from the top, on a
>>> cold day, and then you take your plane out on a warm day, and the fuel
>>> is up to the top, it will not weigh less. It may in fact weigh a
>>> minuscule amount more, due to additional dissolved gases. The comment
>>> about Jets calculating fuel in pounds is accurate, but that would not
>>> simply be because fuel weighs less when it is warm. It would have more
>>> to do with that it has less volume when it is warm , for the same
>>> given amount of fuel in molecules. So you are not going crazy.
>>> Either way, the warm fuel versus cold fuel is a small enough number
>>> has to be pretty much insignificant when calculating your weight and
>>> balance. Sure, it may weigh a few pounds more if you feel to the exact
>>> same spot on a cold day as on a warm day, but I don't think a weight
>>> and balance needs to be calculated to that Precision.
>>> Tim
>>>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | W&B Configuration |
I did mine, full lines and 9 on the stick. I am changing my starter and will
be redoing it in May. I am going to 8 this time. I almost always run
within a Quart of that. Never over 9 and as low as 6 is what I have seen in
my 700 hours.
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 Phillip Perry
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:07 PM
Subject: RV10-List: W&B Configuration
I'm about to zero in on having this thing on the scales in the next couple
of days.
Reading the FAA circular, they mention that the sumo should be full. (12 Qts
in my case). Vans Section 5 is a little more vague.
I have a hard time seeing myself ever filling the sump with 12, just to
watch it get pumped right overboard and settle in around 8-9 on the stick.
What have you all done with regards to sump capacity when running your W&B?
I'm tempted to run it with full lines and 8 on the stick.
But I'm just curious to know what most of you have done with yours?
Sent from my iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: W&B Configuration |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Hey Berck,
I, like Jesse, am getting a chuckle out of this whole discussion.
I read what you said here, and I think we're basically saying
the same thing. Of course, a pound of fuel hot and a pound
of fuel cold will have the same volume and weight, when
temperature equalizes. I think that is what I was trying
to say, but I just didn't do it eloquently enough. :)
The weight of the fuel is due to the molecular structure
of the fuel itself having that weight per fuel molecule.
It just happens to be that if you heat things up, the
molecules become further apart and less dense, so the
volume changes. But, a the number of molecules and
weight doesn't change.
Now, if you really want to get a pressure/volume/density
problem that confuses people, try explaining why moist
air is LIGHTER than dry air. Everyone always says stuff
like "the air was so heavy and wet today". The funny
thing is, moist air weighs less than dry air.
That's why the dangerous factors in flying are
"Hot, High, and Humid".... the air is less dense.
If moist air was heavier than dry air, we'd be in
a constant state of ground fog, and clouds wouldn't
be up high in the sky. ;)
Tim
(I think I just caused worse thread creep than original.)
:)
On 03/27/2017 10:25 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Tim Olson > wrote:
>
>
> As long as you understand that nearly the entire reason that
> the fuel has a different "weight" per gallon is that the
> actual QUANTITY of fuel molecules in that gallon is less
> as it gets warmer, then you're right on. It's a VOLUME
> issue, not a weight issue. If you took hot fuel
> of a given weight, and cold fuel of a given weight, and
> brought them to the same temperature, they would still
> weigh the same but have different VOLUMES.
>
>
> Uhm, no. If you take a pound of cold fuel and pound of hot fuel,
> they're going to have the same volume *and* weight once you equalize the
> temperature. This is one of the many reasons we fuel airliners by weight.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Condition inspection |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Tim,
I think we are in violent agreement over the fuel.
It hardly seems like a year has gone by, but I need to do the condition
inspection.
Just wondering if you have developed or collected a checklist that is
particularly relevant to the RV-10. I'm very familiar with the Appendix
D checklist, but it is way too generic.
On 3/27/2017 7:43 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> As long as you understand that nearly the entire reason that
> the fuel has a different "weight" per gallon is that the
> actual QUANTITY of fuel molecules in that gallon is less
> as it gets warmer, then you're right on. It's a VOLUME
> issue, not a weight issue. If you took hot fuel
> of a given weight, and cold fuel of a given weight, and
> brought them to the same temperature, they would still
> weigh the same but have different VOLUMES.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: W&B Configuration |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Tim Olson wrote:
> Hey Berck,
>
> I, like Jesse, am getting a chuckle out of this whole discussion.
>
>
> If moist air was heavier than dry air, we'd be in
> a constant state of ground fog, and clouds wouldn't
> be up high in the sky. ;)
>
> Tim
>
> (I think I just caused worse thread creep than origine]
More thread creep: Moist air doesn't rise because it's moist. In the lower atmosphere
there's very good mixing. If that weren't true all the oxygen would be
down low, and at higher altitudes it would be all nitrogen. What changes is the
amount of water in the vapor state depends on temperature. As the air cools
as it rises, you reach the dew point - where no more water can evaporate, so you
start having liquid drops.
I thought an early post was referring to Einstein's theory of special relativity:
E=mc2(squared). Strictly speaking a sealed container of anything should weigh
more as energy (heat) is added. But the speed of light squared is such a big
number that you can't measure it under most circumstances.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467694#467694
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Condition inspection |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Hey Kelly,
The time is really flying by. Just this weekend I was working
thru mine on both airplanes. There are a few things I'd like to
revise on this, but this is the one I've used in the past.
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/maintenance/20070225/index.html
I should probably add in the various areas that were covered by
SB's over the past years. I just did the aileron hinge bracket
check on both planes this year and of course found no cracks.
I find the RV's really nice and easy to inspect at least from
a flight controls perspective.
Tim
On 03/27/2017 11:01 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> Tim,
> I think we are in violent agreement over the fuel.
> It hardly seems like a year has gone by, but I need to do the condition
> inspection.
> Just wondering if you have developed or collected a checklist that is
> particularly relevant to the RV-10. I'm very familiar with the Appendix
> D checklist, but it is way too generic.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Hooker Issues.... |
My Hookers are giving me a hard time.... Still trying to get the W&B
completed and I started the process of installing the seat belts.
1) The front seats require a 5/16 bolt and my harnesses have 1/4" bushings.
Is it common to drill that bushing out, or have some of you had to send
yours back to Hooker and have the hole enlarged and a new bushing installed.
2) Where I do have 1/4" bushings installed (like for the rear seats, etc.)
those bushings are extremely wide. When I try to slide them into the slot
on the anchors, it severely distorts them by spreading them apart. Any
ideas there?
I was hoping this week wasn't going to be full of hooker problems. But I
don't get to choose my problems, I just get to deal with the consequences.
Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Home <bdgillespie215(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hooker Issues.... |
I don't recall any issues with the bushings. I see a note indicating to drill out
the bushing diameter to the bolt diameter if needed. The thickness just needs
to be wider than the harness attach point to allow it to rotate after tightened.
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 27, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> My Hookers are giving me a hard time.... Still trying to get the W&B completed
and I started the process of installing the seat belts.
>
> 1) The front seats require a 5/16 bolt and my harnesses have 1/4" bushings.
Is it common to drill that bushing out, or have some of you had to send yours
back to Hooker and have the hole enlarged and a new bushing installed.
>
> 2) Where I do have 1/4" bushings installed (like for the rear seats, etc.) those
bushings are extremely wide. When I try to slide them into the slot on the
anchors, it severely distorts them by spreading them apart. Any ideas there?
>
> I was hoping this week wasn't going to be full of hooker problems. But I don't
get to choose my problems, I just get to deal with the consequences.
>
> Phil
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hooker Issues.... |
Phil,
I recall the bushings being a tight squeeze on mine as well. I assumed it
was to allow the belts to rotate freely when tightened. I did have to call
Hooker to get new end brackets for the upper cabin supports. This was
after I ruined a few drill bits enlarging the holes.
Shannon
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> My Hookers are giving me a hard time.... Still trying to get the W&B
> completed and I started the process of installing the seat belts.
>
> 1) The front seats require a 5/16 bolt and my harnesses have 1/4"
> bushings. Is it common to drill that bushing out, or have some of you had
> to send yours back to Hooker and have the hole enlarged and a new bushing
> installed.
>
> 2) Where I do have 1/4" bushings installed (like for the rear seats, etc.)
> those bushings are extremely wide. When I try to slide them into the slot
> on the anchors, it severely distorts them by spreading them apart. Any
> ideas there?
>
> I was hoping this week wasn't going to be full of hooker problems. But I
> don't get to choose my problems, I just get to deal with the consequences.
>
> Phil
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hooker Issues.... |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
It's been too long for me to remember my RV-10 install of the
belts, but I had issues with the Crow harnesses on my 14
too. In the end, you can make most anything work if you
want. You can drill out or make your own bushings,
or use different aluminum tubing to make the bushings out
of, or whatever you feel is best. On my crows, I had a large
hole and needed to make it smaller, so I bought some round
delrin rod and made mine out of delrin instead of AL.
You just want to make sure the seat belt end can swivel, so
make the bushing a little wider than the belt attach end.
Regarding #2, I would just polish or grind down any spacers if
they are too wide. Again, you just want a bushing that's wide
enough so that when you bolt it up, the belt end can
swivel...so just a little wider than that gap when filled
with the buckle end.
So if you're having problems with your hookers, you can
drill them or ream them, whatever you fancy. But just
don't beat them...they're just trying to do their job.
Oh, and make sure that they swing, and that they hold on
around your waist snugly when you're cuddled with them.
I never go anywhere in my -10 without my 4 hookers.
BTW: The crows I have in my -14 are also pretty nice,
but I do prefer the hooker buckles for my RV-10 in that
airplane. I prefer the crow "knob" in the RV-14 due to
the crotch strap. So it worked out well that I have some
of each.
Tim
On 03/27/2017 01:30 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> My Hookers are giving me a hard time.... Still trying to get the W&B
> completed and I started the process of installing the seat belts.
>
> 1) The front seats require a 5/16 bolt and my harnesses have 1/4"
> bushings. Is it common to drill that bushing out, or have some of you
> had to send yours back to Hooker and have the hole enlarged and a new
> bushing installed.
>
> 2) Where I do have 1/4" bushings installed (like for the rear seats,
> etc.) those bushings are extremely wide. When I try to slide them into
> the slot on the anchors, it severely distorts them by spreading them
> apart. Any ideas there?
>
> I was hoping this week wasn't going to be full of hooker problems. But
> I don't get to choose my problems, I just get to deal with the consequences.
>
> Phil
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Hooker Issues.... |
Yep =93 call Hooker for the front seat shoulder harness brackets
and get ones with a larger hole.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Shannon Hicks
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Hooker Issues....
Phil,
I recall the bushings being a tight squeeze on mine as well. I assumed
it was to allow the belts to rotate freely when tightened. I did have
to call Hooker to get new end brackets for the upper cabin supports.
This was after I ruined a few drill bits enlarging the holes.
Shannon
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Phillip Perry
wrote:
My Hookers are giving me a hard time.... Still trying to get the W&B
completed and I started the process of installing the seat belts.
1) The front seats require a 5/16 bolt and my harnesses have 1/4"
bushings. Is it common to drill that bushing out, or have some of you
had to send yours back to Hooker and have the hole enlarged and a new
bushing installed.
2) Where I do have 1/4" bushings installed (like for the rear seats,
etc.) those bushings are extremely wide. When I try to slide them into
the slot on the anchors, it severely distorts them by spreading them
apart. Any ideas there?
I was hoping this week wasn't going to be full of hooker problems. But
I don't get to choose my problems, I just get to deal with the
consequences.
Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Hooker Issues.... |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |
SSBnb3QgZXhjaXRlZCB3aGVuIEkgcmVhZCB0aGUgc3ViamVjdCBsaW5lIC4uLi4uLi4gbm90IHRo
ZSBhZHZpY2UgSSBleHBlY3RlZCAuLi4uLgoKU29ycnksIGNvdWxkbid0IHJlc2lzdCEhISEKTGlu
bgoKClNlbnQgZnJvbSBTYW1zdW5nIHRhYmxldCBjcnVpc2luZyBvbiB0aGUgT2FzaXMgT2YgVGhl
IFNlYXMuCgotLS0tLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBtZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tLS0tCkZyb20gQ2FybCBGcm9l
aGxpY2ggPGNhcmwuZnJvZWhsaWNoQHZlcml6b24ubmV0PiAKRGF0ZTogMDMvMjcvMjAxNyAgMzo0
OCBQTSAgKEdNVC0wNTowMCkgClRvIHJ2MTAtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tIApTdWJqZWN0IFJF
OiBSVjEwLUxpc3Q6IEhvb2tlciBJc3N1ZXMuLi4uIAogClllcCDigJMgY2FsbCBIb29rZXIgZm9y
IHRoZSBmcm9udCBzZWF0IHNob3VsZGVyIGhhcm5lc3MgYnJhY2tldHMgYW5kIGdldCBvbmVzIHdp
dGggYSBsYXJnZXIgaG9sZS4KwqAKQ2FybArCoApGcm9tOiBvd25lci1ydjEwLWxpc3Qtc2VydmVy
QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20gW21haWx0bzpvd25lci1ydjEwLWxpc3Qtc2VydmVyQG1hdHJvbmljcy5j
b21dIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBTaGFubm9uIEhpY2tzClNlbnQ6IE1vbmRheSwgTWFyY2ggMjcsIDIw
MTcgMzoyNiBQTQpUbzogcnYxMC1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFJWMTAt
TGlzdDogSG9va2VyIElzc3Vlcy4uLi4KwqAKUGhpbCwKSSByZWNhbGwgdGhlIGJ1c2hpbmdzwqBi
ZWluZyBhIHRpZ2h0IHNxdWVlemUgb24gbWluZSBhcyB3ZWxsLsKgIEkgYXNzdW1lZCBpdCB3YXMg
dG8gYWxsb3cgdGhlIGJlbHRzIHRvIHJvdGF0ZSBmcmVlbHkgd2hlbiB0aWdodGVuZWQuwqAgSSBk
aWQgaGF2ZSB0byBjYWxsIEhvb2tlciB0byBnZXTCoG5ldyBlbmQgYnJhY2tldHMgZm9yIHRoZSB1
cHBlciBjYWJpbiBzdXBwb3J0cy7CoCBUaGlzIHdhcyBhZnRlciBJIHJ1aW5lZCBhIGZldyBkcmls
bCBiaXRzIGVubGFyZ2luZyB0aGUgaG9sZXMuIMKgCsKgClNoYW5ub24KwqAKT24gTW9uLCBNYXIg
MjcsIDIwMTcgYXQgMTozMCBQTSwgUGhpbGxpcCBQZXJyeSA8cGhpbHBlcnJ5OUBnbWFpbC5jb20+
IHdyb3RlOgpNeSBIb29rZXJzIGFyZSBnaXZpbmcgbWUgYSBoYXJkIHRpbWUuLi4uIMKgIFN0aWxs
IHRyeWluZyB0byBnZXQgdGhlIFcmQiBjb21wbGV0ZWQgYW5kIEkgc3RhcnRlZCB0aGUgcHJvY2Vz
cyBvZiBpbnN0YWxsaW5nIHRoZSBzZWF0IGJlbHRzLgrCoAoxKSBUaGUgZnJvbnQgc2VhdHMgcmVx
dWlyZSBhIDUvMTYgYm9sdCBhbmQgbXkgaGFybmVzc2VzIGhhdmUgMS80IiBidXNoaW5ncy4gwqAg
SXMgaXQgY29tbW9uIHRvIGRyaWxsIHRoYXQgYnVzaGluZyBvdXQsIG9yIGhhdmUgc29tZSBvZiB5
b3UgaGFkIHRvIHNlbmQgeW91cnMgYmFjayB0byBIb29rZXIgYW5kIGhhdmUgdGhlIGhvbGUgZW5s
YXJnZWQgYW5kIGEgbmV3IGJ1c2hpbmcgaW5zdGFsbGVkLgrCoAoyKSBXaGVyZSBJIGRvIGhhdmUg
MS80IiBidXNoaW5ncyBpbnN0YWxsZWQgKGxpa2UgZm9yIHRoZSByZWFyIHNlYXRzLCBldGMuKSB0
aG9zZSBidXNoaW5ncyBhcmUgZXh0cmVtZWx5IHdpZGUuwqAgV2hlbiBJIHRyeSB0byBzbGlkZSB0
aGVtIGludG8gdGhlIHNsb3Qgb24gdGhlIGFuY2hvcnMsIGl0IHNldmVyZWx5IGRpc3RvcnRzIHRo
ZW0gYnkgc3ByZWFkaW5nIHRoZW0gYXBhcnQuIMKgIEFueSBpZGVhcyB0aGVyZT8KwqAKSSB3YXMg
aG9waW5nIHRoaXMgd2VlayB3YXNuJ3QgZ29pbmcgdG8gYmUgZnVsbCBvZiBob29rZXIgcHJvYmxl
bXMuwqAgQnV0IEkgZG9uJ3QgZ2V0IHRvIGNob29zZSBteSBwcm9ibGVtcywgSSBqdXN0IGdldCB0
byBkZWFsIHdpdGggdGhlIGNvbnNlcXVlbmNlcy4KwqAKUGhpbArCoArCoA=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> |
I have 8 oz in one tank and 9 in the other of unusable full when tanks were
drained while sitting on the ramp. Aircraft was in level cruise flight and
tank was used in flight until fuel pressure started to drop. Switched tanks,
landed and drained tank. Very small amount of unusable fuel but makes me
aware of the need to frequently check tanks for water/other contamination.
Anyone else have numbers?
Albert Gardner
RV-10 N991RV
Yuma, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Beyer <fehdxlbb(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unuseable Full |
How much is unusable in a takeoff/go-around attitude? Or a cross-wind slip to
landing? That's the value we all should really be seeking and using to flight
plan.
Fly safe,
Jim
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 00:23, Albert wrote:
>
>
> I have 8 oz in one tank and 9 in the other of unusable full when tanks were
> drained while sitting on the ramp. Aircraft was in level cruise flight and
> tank was used in flight until fuel pressure started to drop. Switched tanks,
> landed and drained tank. Very small amount of unusable fuel but makes me
> aware of the need to frequently check tanks for water/other contamination.
> Anyone else have numbers?
> Albert Gardner
> RV-10 N991RV
> Yuma, AZ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Unuseable Full |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |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=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unuseable Full |
Hopefully, if you're, for whatever reason, running right down to the last d
rop, you won't=C2-be doing anything wierd, other than landing the airplan
e. =C2-I purposely ran a tank dry, at very low time, for 2 reasons, one,
to find the usable fuel, the other to insure the engine would refire. The r
esults were very comforting; =C2-could barely fill 1/4 of the plastic fue
l tester, and the engine fired back up immediately, with no boost pump nece
ssary.Although we tend to flight plan longer legs than most of our RV frien
ds, it's still nowhere near 55 gallons. =C2-Usually use 4 hours, and, if
necessary, slightly longer, but only if there is/are other fuel choices clo
ser in case fuel burn is higher and/or speed is much slower. =C2-We are v
ery blessed to be flying a fast and efficient plane, which makes flight pla
nning a whole lot easier.I usually start the flight planning at around 600n
m..... looking for the cheapest fuel, at the highest possible airport. =C2
-You'll save fuel and time being able to decend and climb out 5,000' inst
ead of 10,000'.=C2-Don McDonaldComing up on 1,000 hours and still enjoyin
g every damn minute.In an attempt to share the fun, I now have had over 275
"different" passengers.
From: Jim Beyer <fehdxlbb(at)gmail.com>
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Unuseable Full
How much is unusable in a takeoff/go-around attitude?=C2- Or a cross-wind
slip to landing?=C2- That's the value we all should really be seeking an
d using to flight plan.
Fly safe,
Jim
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 00:23, Albert wrote:
>
>
> I have 8 oz in one tank and 9 in the other of unusable full when tanks we
re
> drained while sitting on the ramp. Aircraft was in level cruise flight an
d
> tank was used in flight until fuel pressure started to drop. Switched tan
ks,
> landed and drained tank. Very small amount of unusable fuel=C2- but mak
es me
> aware of the need to frequently check tanks for water/other contamination
.
> Anyone else have numbers?
> Albert Gardner
> RV-10 N991RV
> Yuma, AZ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
S -
WIKI -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Spider Identification |
Could someone help me identify what this GAGE connection is? How should I
terminate it?
Is this an overflow?
Thanks!
[image: Inline image 1]
--
Vernon Franklin
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Unuseable Full |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
I somewhat agree. I think Jim's general concept is correct...you
wouldn't want to flight plan with an amount of fuel that is
expected to be available but may not be under certain conditions.
But, at the same time, you can't really try to simulate the
most extreme situations and come up with a reliable number.
First, let me say that when I did my test, I got maybe a
pop-can's worth of fuel out after flying them empty.
That was in level flight. Also, I just saw someone posted
on the RV-14 forum that they got between .1 and .2 gallons
remaining doing the same thing. A pop can is 12oz, which
is also .1 gallons. So, we can basically know that
there is almost zero unusable fuel in the RV-10/14 design
of wing tanks. 12oz isn't enough for me to say counts
for anything. I certainly can't top my tanks off to within
12oz every time, given uneven pavement and such.
So in the RV-10, I just consider all fuel to be
labeled "useable".
But, the other thing we know about the RV-10 tanks is that
the fuel port is just a couple inches from the aft portion
of the tank near the spar, and it's on the flatter area of
the tank, not on the curved airfoil. So where Jim
says in a "takeoff/go-around situation", in the RV-10,
that is actually not where I would have my worry.
I think you could actually tap into that last little
bit of fuel better in climb-out, especially if you
mis-applied rudder enough to keep the fuel forced against
the bulkhead.
My big worry, and the reason I really don't fly it down
to less than 5 gallons per tank, has a few reasons:
1) with float error and such, I don't want to count on the
accuracy that low.
2) I have fuel low warnings that come on around 6-7
gallons (each side) if I remember right. If I go below
that, I'm going to be hitting mute a lot.
3) During landing, if you don't keep the rudder pressure
right, or have a crosswind that you have to correct for,
you could easily un-port that fuel port even with a couple
gallons in there.
4) This is the big one... In landing configuration, the
RV-10 tips quite a bit nose down if you are landing
with full flaps. (I almost always do) and you are far
more likely to un-port the fuel inlet when it all
sloshes forward in the tank.
So I really don't like the idea of trying to bring a plane
in at low fuel levels.
In teaching landings, BTW, we all know that there
are 2 ways to do the crosswind correction. I've been
teaching them a bunch lately. You can crab to landing
and then kick the rudder in just before you touch down,
or you can hold the slip correction all the way down final.
Another instructor I know does not even TEACH the former
method, and I am not thrilled by this. I specifically
teach my students that although the slip to final is
easier for initial learning, they will absolutely
want to work to perfect the crab and kick-in the rudder
method. It will be really the only way to help
guard against fuel un-porting in lower fuel situations,
and there are planes like one I used to own, that
are placarded "slips with flaps prohibited". So I
see this as a very necessary skill for pilots.
Taking into consideration the above, that's how I
came to my personal minimum of 10 gallons remaining
for the RV-10. In fact, I think my lowest was 10.2,
and that only happened one time. If I were even
to want to stretch my fuel burn lower, the only way
I would do it is to fly one tank empty, and land
with 5 gallons in the remaining tank....but take this
with a grain of salt because that would violate
the FAR's...the RV-10 in cruise (low-altitude
such as going to an alternate airport) will generally
burn more than 10gph (usually 14 or so), and
that puts you below the 30 minute fuel reserve
minimums. I myself would only use that method
in the most extreme fuel emergency, but it is
a tool to keep in your back pocket.
Hopefully by reading the above, if you weren't already
thinking of fuel minimums for yourself, you can at
least have some food for thought when you develop
your own personal fuel minimums.
Tim
On 03/28/2017 07:24 AM, Linn Walters wrote:
> That might be good info but useless. If you depart or land with that
> little fuel then you're obviously suicidal and in need of professional help.
> IMHO of course!!!!
> Linn
>
>
> Sent from Samsung tablet cruising on the Oasis Of The Seas.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From Jim Beyer <fehdxlbb(at)gmail.com>
> Date: 03/28/2017 1:41 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject Re: RV10-List: Unuseable Full
>
>
> How much is unusable in a takeoff/go-around attitude? Or a cross-wind
> slip to landing? That's the value we all should really be seeking and
> using to flight plan.
>
> Fly safe,
> Jim
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 00:23, Albert wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have 8 oz in one tank and 9 in the other of unusable full when tanks
> were
>> drained while sitting on the ramp. Aircraft was in level cruise flight and
>> tank was used in flight until fuel pressure started to drop. Switched
> tanks,
>> landed and drained tank. Very small amount of unusable fuel but makes me
>> aware of the need to frequently check tanks for water/other contamination.
>> Anyone else have numbers?
>> Albert Gardner
>> RV-10 N991RV
>> Yuma, AZ
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Spider Identification |
If you have a fuel flow sensor like the red cube, etc., you can just cap
it. It's used by some installations to display fuel pressure (often
converted to fuel flow) in the cockpit.--Dave
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Vernon Franklin
wrote:
> Could someone help me identify what this GAGE connection is? How should I
> terminate it?
> Is this an overflow?
>
> Thanks!
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
>
> --
> Vernon Franklin
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Spider Identification |
| From: | "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com> |
I plugged it. Here's a picture of my spider and a diagram from the Silverhawk manual.
vernon.franklin(at)gmail. wrote:
> Could someone help me identify what this GAGE connection is? How should I terminate
it?
> Is this an overflow?
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> [img]cid:ii_15b14f6755030dab[/img]
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Vernon Franklin
--------
Lenny
N311LZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467736#467736
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/silverhawk_189.png
http://forums.matronics.com//files/spider_181.png
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Unuseable Full |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Just a couple points. Most single engine Cessnas have some
recommendation against slipping with full flaps. However, I don't recall
any that prohibited it, and certainly not slips for crosswind landing.
Second, the FAR fuel requirements for VFR and IFR are "planning"
requirements, not a requirement to land with that much fuel. For VFR it
is only a "planned" 30 minutes, which I guess would be about 7-8 gal.
For IFR if no alternate is required, 45 min. If alternate is needed,
then fuel to that alternate plus 45 min.
That said, I too am very uncomfortable with less than 5 gal per tank, or
10 gal all in one tank, and I prefer to plan for 15 gal on board at
landing. Likewise, if it looks like I am burning more than planned by
1/2 way distance, I will start evaluating alternates to at least get 15
gal extra.
As a controller, I once worked a DC-8-63 that landed without enough fuel
to even make a go around to a less suitable airport 7 miles away. They
had an enroute alternate, passed that when destination was still above
minimums, and then destination and nearby alternates went below
minimums. Forced them to fly an extra 300 nm to nearest suitable
airport, which fortunately for them was clear and 80 nm vis.
I can't imagine the pressure of being committed to a single shot at
landing a large jet from 300 nm out, knowing that any delay, any miscalc
and you would crash.
On 3/28/2017 6:19 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
> My big worry, and the reason I really don't fly it down
> to less than 5 gallons per tank, has a few reasons:
>
> 1) with float error and such, I don't want to count on the
> accuracy that low.
It will be really the only way to help
> guard against fuel un-porting in lower fuel situations,
> and there are planes like one I used to own, that
> are placarded "slips with flaps prohibited". So I
> see this as a very necessary skill for pilots.
>
> Taking into consideration the above, that's how I
> came to my personal minimum of 10 gallons remaining
> for the RV-10. In fact, I think my lowest was 10.2,
> and that only happened one time. If I were even
> to want to stretch my fuel burn lower, the only way
> I would do it is to fly one tank empty, and land
> with 5 gallons in the remaining tank....but take this
> with a grain of salt because that would violate
> the FAR's...the RV-10 in cruise (low-altitude
> such as going to an alternate airport) will generally
> burn more than 10gph (usually 14 or so), and
> that puts you below the 30 minute fuel reserve
> minimums. I myself would only use that method
> in the most extreme fuel emergency, but it is
> a tool to keep in your back pocket.
>
> Hopefully by reading the above, if you weren't already
> thinking of fuel minimums for yourself, you can at
> least have some food for thought when you develop
> your own personal fuel minimums.
>
> Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Orrick <don.orrick(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Spider Identification |
Yes, plug it or it will leak fuel. I thought it was a bleeder but it isn't and
won't leak anytime fuel pressure is applied. Only I Kept finding fuel stains on
the spyder and finally figured it out.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Lenny Iszak wrote:
>
>
> I plugged it. Here's a picture of my spider and a diagram from the Silverhawk
manual.
>
>
>
>
> vernon.franklin(at)gmail. wrote:
>> Could someone help me identify what this GAGE connection is? How should I terminate
it?
>> Is this an overflow?
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> [img]cid:ii_15b14f6755030dab[/img]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Vernon Franklin
>
>
> --------
> Lenny
> N311LZ
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467736#467736
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/silverhawk_189.png
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/spider_181.png
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Unuseable Full |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Yeah, my Sundowner was one of them that was "Slips with flaps
prohibited". I was told a week or so ago that the
flight training cessna locally (M model) was no slips with
full flaps, but as you said, that may be that it was
just advice, not a real prohibition. Still, my main point
was that I think a pilot should absolutely learn both
methods and then try to perfect the no-slip landing so
that they can avoid fuel issues easiest. The same thing
with fuel minimums...may as well not go with the letter of the
law minimums when a prudent amount will be more. For my
students who solo, I will tell them they must land with
10 gallons or 1 hour as an absolute minimum for solo
requirements.
The worst I ever personally saw was an airplane that
landed on a direct flight from the east coast, who
landed straight in, and as they were taxiing to the ramp,
the prop quit about 100 yards away and they rolled to the
pump....bone dry. That was way too closet.
Tim
On 3/28/2017 10:20 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Just a couple points. Most single engine Cessnas have some
> recommendation against slipping with full flaps. However, I don't recall
> any that prohibited it, and certainly not slips for crosswind landing.
> Second, the FAR fuel requirements for VFR and IFR are "planning"
> requirements, not a requirement to land with that much fuel. For VFR it
> is only a "planned" 30 minutes, which I guess would be about 7-8 gal.
> For IFR if no alternate is required, 45 min. If alternate is needed,
> then fuel to that alternate plus 45 min.
>
> That said, I too am very uncomfortable with less than 5 gal per tank, or
> 10 gal all in one tank, and I prefer to plan for 15 gal on board at
> landing. Likewise, if it looks like I am burning more than planned by
> 1/2 way distance, I will start evaluating alternates to at least get 15
> gal extra.
> As a controller, I once worked a DC-8-63 that landed without enough fuel
> to even make a go around to a less suitable airport 7 miles away. They
> had an enroute alternate, passed that when destination was still above
> minimums, and then destination and nearby alternates went below
> minimums. Forced them to fly an extra 300 nm to nearest suitable
> airport, which fortunately for them was clear and 80 nm vis.
> I can't imagine the pressure of being committed to a single shot at
> landing a large jet from 300 nm out, knowing that any delay, any miscalc
> and you would crash.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unuseable Full |
In January 1981,Portland had a DC-8 which circled multiple times during a
mechanical issue until both turbines went silent. 11 soles were lost when
the pilot made a choice to continue flight. The landing was on 162nd and
Stark in SE PDX.
The FAA developed Cockpit Resource Management as a result. Discussions
were held of the independent streak of post war fighter pilots in the
decision making process.. CRM morphed into Crew Resourse Management which
places the responsibility of the newer pilots to reach out and consult
every available resource. As a result the safety record continues to
improve.
John
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Just a couple points. Most single engine Cessnas have some recommendation
> against slipping with full flaps. However, I don't recall any that
> prohibited it, and certainly not slips for crosswind landing.
> Second, the FAR fuel requirements for VFR and IFR are "planning"
> requirements, not a requirement to land with that much fuel. For VFR it is
> only a "planned" 30 minutes, which I guess would be about 7-8 gal.
> For IFR if no alternate is required, 45 min. If alternate is needed, then
> fuel to that alternate plus 45 min.
>
> That said, I too am very uncomfortable with less than 5 gal per tank, or
> 10 gal all in one tank, and I prefer to plan for 15 gal on board at
> landing. Likewise, if it looks like I am burning more than planned by 1/2
> way distance, I will start evaluating alternates to at least get 15 gal
> extra.
> As a controller, I once worked a DC-8-63 that landed without enough fuel
> to even make a go around to a less suitable airport 7 miles away. They had
> an enroute alternate, passed that when destination was still above
> minimums, and then destination and nearby alternates went below minimums.
> Forced them to fly an extra 300 nm to nearest suitable airport, which
> fortunately for them was clear and 80 nm vis.
> I can't imagine the pressure of being committed to a single shot at
> landing a large jet from 300 nm out, knowing that any delay, any miscalc
> and you would crash.
>
> On 3/28/2017 6:19 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>
> My big worry, and the reason I really don't fly it down
>> to less than 5 gallons per tank, has a few reasons:
>>
>> 1) with float error and such, I don't want to count on the
>> accuracy that low.
>>
>
> It will be really the only way to help
>
>> guard against fuel un-porting in lower fuel situations,
>> and there are planes like one I used to own, that
>> are placarded "slips with flaps prohibited". So I
>> see this as a very necessary skill for pilots.
>>
>> Taking into consideration the above, that's how I
>> came to my personal minimum of 10 gallons remaining
>> for the RV-10. In fact, I think my lowest was 10.2,
>> and that only happened one time. If I were even
>> to want to stretch my fuel burn lower, the only way
>> I would do it is to fly one tank empty, and land
>> with 5 gallons in the remaining tank....but take this
>> with a grain of salt because that would violate
>> the FAR's...the RV-10 in cruise (low-altitude
>> such as going to an alternate airport) will generally
>> burn more than 10gph (usually 14 or so), and
>> that puts you below the 30 minute fuel reserve
>> minimums. I myself would only use that method
>> in the most extreme fuel emergency, but it is
>> a tool to keep in your back pocket.
>>
>> Hopefully by reading the above, if you weren't already
>> thinking of fuel minimums for yourself, you can at
>> least have some food for thought when you develop
>> your own personal fuel minimums.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
Not to start another discussion....but why not. I thought the no slip with full
flips on some aircraft, t-tail in particular, had to do with blanking out the
tail. I know is some Cessna in my past, it had a time limit and I assume that
was a fuel issue.
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: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Unuseable Full
Yeah, my Sundowner was one of them that was "Slips with flaps prohibited". I was
told a week or so ago that the flight training cessna locally (M model) was
no slips with full flaps, but as you said, that may be that it was just advice,
not a real prohibition. Still, my main point was that I think a pilot should
absolutely learn both methods and then try to perfect the no-slip landing so
that they can avoid fuel issues easiest. The same thing with fuel minimums...may
as well not go with the letter of the law minimums when a prudent amount
will be more. For my students who solo, I will tell them they must land with
10 gallons or 1 hour as an absolute minimum for solo requirements.
The worst I ever personally saw was an airplane that landed on a direct flight
from the east coast, who landed straight in, and as they were taxiing to the ramp,
the prop quit about 100 yards away and they rolled to the pump....bone dry.
That was way too closet.
Tim
On 3/28/2017 10:20 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Just a couple points. Most single engine Cessnas have some
> recommendation against slipping with full flaps. However, I don't
> recall any that prohibited it, and certainly not slips for crosswind landing.
> Second, the FAR fuel requirements for VFR and IFR are "planning"
> requirements, not a requirement to land with that much fuel. For VFR
> it is only a "planned" 30 minutes, which I guess would be about 7-8 gal.
> For IFR if no alternate is required, 45 min. If alternate is needed,
> then fuel to that alternate plus 45 min.
>
> That said, I too am very uncomfortable with less than 5 gal per tank,
> or
> 10 gal all in one tank, and I prefer to plan for 15 gal on board at
> landing. Likewise, if it looks like I am burning more than planned by
> 1/2 way distance, I will start evaluating alternates to at least get
> 15 gal extra.
> As a controller, I once worked a DC-8-63 that landed without enough
> fuel to even make a go around to a less suitable airport 7 miles away.
> They had an enroute alternate, passed that when destination was still
> above minimums, and then destination and nearby alternates went below
> minimums. Forced them to fly an extra 300 nm to nearest suitable
> airport, which fortunately for them was clear and 80 nm vis.
> I can't imagine the pressure of being committed to a single shot at
> landing a large jet from 300 nm out, knowing that any delay, any
> miscalc and you would crash.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Unuseable Full |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Sadly I personally haven't heard the "why" but just see the placards
or notes in the POH. I guess they aren't expected to tell us
the details but only give us the prohibition... I can only
assume that in some cases it's aerodynamic and other cases it's
fuel or systems related. There are probably far better
sources than myself who could speak to the why on various
airplanes.
Tim
On 03/28/2017 10:55 AM, Rene wrote:
>
> Not to start another discussion....but why not. I thought the no slip with full
flips on some aircraft, t-tail in particular, had to do with blanking out the
tail. I know is some Cessna in my past, it had a time limit and I assume that
was a fuel issue.
>
> 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: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:35 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Unuseable Full
>
>
> Yeah, my Sundowner was one of them that was "Slips with flaps prohibited". I
was told a week or so ago that the flight training cessna locally (M model) was
no slips with full flaps, but as you said, that may be that it was just advice,
not a real prohibition. Still, my main point was that I think a pilot should
absolutely learn both methods and then try to perfect the no-slip landing
so that they can avoid fuel issues easiest. The same thing with fuel minimums...may
as well not go with the letter of the law minimums when a prudent amount
will be more. For my students who solo, I will tell them they must land with
> 10 gallons or 1 hour as an absolute minimum for solo requirements.
>
> The worst I ever personally saw was an airplane that landed on a direct flight
from the east coast, who landed straight in, and as they were taxiing to the
ramp, the prop quit about 100 yards away and they rolled to the pump....bone
dry. That was way too closet.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 3/28/2017 10:20 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>> Just a couple points. Most single engine Cessnas have some
>> recommendation against slipping with full flaps. However, I don't
>> recall any that prohibited it, and certainly not slips for crosswind landing.
>> Second, the FAR fuel requirements for VFR and IFR are "planning"
>> requirements, not a requirement to land with that much fuel. For VFR
>> it is only a "planned" 30 minutes, which I guess would be about 7-8 gal.
>> For IFR if no alternate is required, 45 min. If alternate is needed,
>> then fuel to that alternate plus 45 min.
>>
>> That said, I too am very uncomfortable with less than 5 gal per tank,
>> or
>> 10 gal all in one tank, and I prefer to plan for 15 gal on board at
>> landing. Likewise, if it looks like I am burning more than planned by
>> 1/2 way distance, I will start evaluating alternates to at least get
>> 15 gal extra.
>> As a controller, I once worked a DC-8-63 that landed without enough
>> fuel to even make a go around to a less suitable airport 7 miles away.
>> They had an enroute alternate, passed that when destination was still
>> above minimums, and then destination and nearby alternates went below
>> minimums. Forced them to fly an extra 300 nm to nearest suitable
>> airport, which fortunately for them was clear and 80 nm vis.
>> I can't imagine the pressure of being committed to a single shot at
>> landing a large jet from 300 nm out, knowing that any delay, any
>> miscalc and you would crash.
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Berck E. Nash" <flyboy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unuseable Full |
The older 172s (40 degrees of flaps), will sometimes, after prolonged slips
with full flaps, unexpectedly and sharply drop the nose because of blocked
airflow over the tail. It's easy to recover, but it's scary. The newer,
30 degree flapped 172s will not do this (I beleive this s why flaps were
limited to 30 degrees), but will do some pretty odd buffeting in prolonged
slips with full flaps. Fuel supply is not a problem as long as you've got
some fuel in both tanks and the selector on both.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Sadly I personally haven't heard the "why" but just see the placards
> or notes in the POH. I guess they aren't expected to tell us
> the details but only give us the prohibition... I can only
> assume that in some cases it's aerodynamic and other cases it's
> fuel or systems related. There are probably far better
> sources than myself who could speak to the why on various
> airplanes.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 03/28/2017 10:55 AM, Rene wrote:
>
>>
>> Not to start another discussion....but why not. I thought the no slip
>> with full flips on some aircraft, t-tail in particular, had to do with
>> blanking out the tail. I know is some Cessna in my past, it had a time
>> limit and I assume that was a fuel issue.
>>
>> Rene'
>> 801-721-6080
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server
>> @matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:35 AM
>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Unuseable Full
>>
>>
>> Yeah, my Sundowner was one of them that was "Slips with flaps
>> prohibited". I was told a week or so ago that the flight training cessna
>> locally (M model) was no slips with full flaps, but as you said, that may
>> be that it was just advice, not a real prohibition. Still, my main point
>> was that I think a pilot should absolutely learn both methods and then try
>> to perfect the no-slip landing so that they can avoid fuel issues easiest.
>> The same thing with fuel minimums...may as well not go with the letter of
>> the law minimums when a prudent amount will be more. For my students who
>> solo, I will tell them they must land with
>> 10 gallons or 1 hour as an absolute minimum for solo requirements.
>>
>> The worst I ever personally saw was an airplane that landed on a direct
>> flight from the east coast, who landed straight in, and as they were
>> taxiing to the ramp, the prop quit about 100 yards away and they rolled to
>> the pump....bone dry. That was way too closet.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> On 3/28/2017 10:20 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just a couple points. Most single engine Cessnas have some
>>> recommendation against slipping with full flaps. However, I don't
>>> recall any that prohibited it, and certainly not slips for crosswind
>>> landing.
>>> Second, the FAR fuel requirements for VFR and IFR are "planning"
>>> requirements, not a requirement to land with that much fuel. For VFR
>>> it is only a "planned" 30 minutes, which I guess would be about 7-8 gal.
>>> For IFR if no alternate is required, 45 min. If alternate is needed,
>>> then fuel to that alternate plus 45 min.
>>>
>>> That said, I too am very uncomfortable with less than 5 gal per tank,
>>> or
>>> 10 gal all in one tank, and I prefer to plan for 15 gal on board at
>>> landing. Likewise, if it looks like I am burning more than planned by
>>> 1/2 way distance, I will start evaluating alternates to at least get
>>> 15 gal extra.
>>> As a controller, I once worked a DC-8-63 that landed without enough
>>> fuel to even make a go around to a less suitable airport 7 miles away.
>>> They had an enroute alternate, passed that when destination was still
>>> above minimums, and then destination and nearby alternates went below
>>> minimums. Forced them to fly an extra 300 nm to nearest suitable
>>> airport, which fortunately for them was clear and 80 nm vis.
>>> I can't imagine the pressure of being committed to a single shot at
>>> landing a large jet from 300 nm out, knowing that any delay, any
>>> miscalc and you would crash.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Slips and full flaps |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
In the Cessnas, it does go back to blanking the tail. I explored that a
fair amount in C170B I used to own. Under the right conditions, full
flaps and full slip would result in nose falling through with loss of a
couple hundred feet. Just how the placard read varied from year to year.
Not sure, but they may have made changes to later 172s to reduce the
hazard. I got a strong burble a few weeks ago on my -10 when approaching
hot and high. Full flaps and a lot of slip felt real uncomfortable and
so backed off on the slip. I was around 95 mph at the time, just slow
enough to get full flaps out and trying to lose excess altitude.
On 3/28/2017 9:13 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Sadly I personally haven't heard the "why" but just see the placards
> or notes in the POH. I guess they aren't expected to tell us
> the details but only give us the prohibition... I can only
> assume that in some cases it's aerodynamic and other cases it's
> fuel or systems related. There are probably far better
> sources than myself who could speak to the why on various
> airplanes.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 03/28/2017 10:55 AM, Rene wrote:
>>
>> Not to start another discussion....but why not. I thought the no slip
>> with full flips on some aircraft, t-tail in particular, had to do with
>> blanking out the tail. I know is some Cessna in my past, it had a
>> time limit and I assume that was a fuel issue.
>>
>> 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: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:35 AM
>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Unuseable Full
>>
>>
>> Yeah, my Sundowner was one of them that was "Slips with flaps
>> prohibited". I was told a week or so ago that the flight training
>> cessna locally (M model) was no slips with full flaps, but as you
>> said, that may be that it was just advice, not a real prohibition.
>> Still, my main point was that I think a pilot should absolutely learn
>> both methods and then try to perfect the no-slip landing so that they
>> can avoid fuel issues easiest. The same thing with fuel
>> minimums...may as well not go with the letter of the law minimums when
>> a prudent amount will be more. For my students who solo, I will tell
>> them they must land with
>> 10 gallons or 1 hour as an absolute minimum for solo requirements.
>>
>> The worst I ever personally saw was an airplane that landed on a
>> direct flight from the east coast, who landed straight in, and as they
>> were taxiing to the ramp, the prop quit about 100 yards away and they
>> rolled to the pump....bone dry. That was way too closet.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> On 3/28/2017 10:20 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a couple points. Most single engine Cessnas have some
>>> recommendation against slipping with full flaps. However, I don't
>>> recall any that prohibited it, and certainly not slips for crosswind
>>> landing.
>>> Second, the FAR fuel requirements for VFR and IFR are "planning"
>>> requirements, not a requirement to land with that much fuel. For VFR
>>> it is only a "planned" 30 minutes, which I guess would be about 7-8 gal.
>>> For IFR if no alternate is required, 45 min. If alternate is needed,
>>> then fuel to that alternate plus 45 min.
>>>
>>> That said, I too am very uncomfortable with less than 5 gal per tank,
>>> or
>>> 10 gal all in one tank, and I prefer to plan for 15 gal on board at
>>> landing. Likewise, if it looks like I am burning more than planned by
>>> 1/2 way distance, I will start evaluating alternates to at least get
>>> 15 gal extra.
>>> As a controller, I once worked a DC-8-63 that landed without enough
>>> fuel to even make a go around to a less suitable airport 7 miles away.
>>> They had an enroute alternate, passed that when destination was still
>>> above minimums, and then destination and nearby alternates went below
>>> minimums. Forced them to fly an extra 300 nm to nearest suitable
>>> airport, which fortunately for them was clear and 80 nm vis.
>>> I can't imagine the pressure of being committed to a single shot at
>>> landing a large jet from 300 nm out, knowing that any delay, any
>>> miscalc and you would crash.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Unuseable Full |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Fuel supply is a problem with the older Cessnas. I don't recall when or
if they got rid of the placard which required 1/4 tank for takeoff or go
around. the pickup was somewhere near the middle of the tank, (fore and
aft axis) and would unport with nose up attitude used on takeoff climb.
On 3/28/2017 9:24 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:
> The older 172s (40 degrees of flaps), will sometimes, after prolonged
> slips with full flaps, unexpectedly and sharply drop the nose because of
> blocked airflow over the tail. It's easy to recover, but it's scary.
> The newer, 30 degree flapped 172s will not do this (I beleive this s why
> flaps were limited to 30 degrees), but will do some pretty odd buffeting
> in prolonged slips with full flaps. Fuel supply is not a problem as
> long as you've got some fuel in both tanks and the selector on both.
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Tim Olson > wrote:
>
>
> Sadly I personally haven't heard the "why" but just see the placards
> or notes in the POH. I guess they aren't expected to tell us
> the details but only give us the prohibition... I can only
> assume that in some cases it's aerodynamic and other cases it's
> fuel or systems related. There are probably far better
> sources than myself who could speak to the why on various
> airplanes.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 03/28/2017 10:55 AM, Rene wrote:
>
> >
>
> Not to start another discussion....but why not. I thought the no
> slip with full flips on some aircraft, t-tail in particular, had
> to do with blanking out the tail. I know is some Cessna in my
> past, it had a time limit and I assume that was a fuel issue.
>
> 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: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:35 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Unuseable Full
>
>
> Yeah, my Sundowner was one of them that was "Slips with flaps
> prohibited". I was told a week or so ago that the flight
> training cessna locally (M model) was no slips with full flaps,
> but as you said, that may be that it was just advice, not a real
> prohibition. Still, my main point was that I think a pilot
> should absolutely learn both methods and then try to perfect the
> no-slip landing so that they can avoid fuel issues easiest. The
> same thing with fuel minimums...may as well not go with the
> letter of the law minimums when a prudent amount will be more.
> For my students who solo, I will tell them they must land with
> 10 gallons or 1 hour as an absolute minimum for solo requirements.
>
> The worst I ever personally saw was an airplane that landed on a
> direct flight from the east coast, who landed straight in, and
> as they were taxiing to the ramp, the prop quit about 100 yards
> away and they rolled to the pump....bone dry. That was way too
> closet.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 3/28/2017 10:20 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> >
>
> Just a couple points. Most single engine Cessnas have some
> recommendation against slipping with full flaps. However, I
> don't
> recall any that prohibited it, and certainly not slips for
> crosswind landing.
> Second, the FAR fuel requirements for VFR and IFR are "planning"
> requirements, not a requirement to land with that much fuel.
> For VFR
> it is only a "planned" 30 minutes, which I guess would be
> about 7-8 gal.
> For IFR if no alternate is required, 45 min. If alternate is
> needed,
> then fuel to that alternate plus 45 min.
>
> That said, I too am very uncomfortable with less than 5 gal
> per tank,
> or
> 10 gal all in one tank, and I prefer to plan for 15 gal on
> board at
> landing. Likewise, if it looks like I am burning more than
> planned by
> 1/2 way distance, I will start evaluating alternates to at
> least get
> 15 gal extra.
> As a controller, I once worked a DC-8-63 that landed without
> enough
> fuel to even make a go around to a less suitable airport 7
> miles away.
> They had an enroute alternate, passed that when destination
> was still
> above minimums, and then destination and nearby alternates
> went below
> minimums. Forced them to fly an extra 300 nm to nearest suitable
> airport, which fortunately for them was clear and 80 nm vis.
> I can't imagine the pressure of being committed to a single
> shot at
> landing a large jet from 300 nm out, knowing that any delay, any
> miscalc and you would crash.
>
>
> ===================================
> -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
> ===================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Spider Identification |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
You can find the fitting you need to cap it off at places like Aircraft Spruce.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467755#467755
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Spider Identification |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
I think I used a 1/8" NPT plug from something else...they're
available all over the place but something tells me we even
got some extras either with the kit or with something
that I bought for the engine or avionics.
Tim
On 03/28/2017 12:02 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
> You can find the fitting you need to cap it off at places like Aircraft Spruce.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467755#467755
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Unuseable Full |
| From: | Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> |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=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Spider Identification |
Yes I had the same issue as mentioned. Fuel staining the crankcase because of a
small leak from the fitting. There were some spare 1/8 NPT plugs in the Fire
Wall forward kit and I used one of those to plug it.
Cheers John MacCallum
RV10 41016
VH-DUU
> On 29 Mar 2017, at 4:13 am, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>
> I think I used a 1/8" NPT plug from something else...they're
> available all over the place but something tells me we even
> got some extras either with the kit or with something
> that I bought for the engine or avionics.
>
> Tim
>
>> On 03/28/2017 12:02 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>>
>> You can find the fitting you need to cap it off at places like Aircraft Spruce.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467755#467755
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Unuseable Full |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com wrote:
> The flap change was done for certification .... has something to do with ability
to climb with full flaps during a go around.
> Linn
>
>
> --
yes, it was done in conjunction with an increase in gross weight. There's an STC
available for older 172s.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467767#467767
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unuseable Full |
Well I ran my Right tank empty accidentally in purpose while in the Circuit at
Bathurst, NSW Aus. When I checked how much there was left in the tank I got 120
ml out of it. But I also had the engine die on me when doing a big side slip
in level flight for an extended time. The tank was indicating 17 ltrs at the
time. It certainly got my attention real quick as I was only 700 ft agl at the
time. Anyway from that event I made a note to myself to not go below 20 ltrs
(5.2 Galls US) on any tank while in flight.
Cheers John MacCalum
RV10 41016
VH-DUU
> On 29 Mar 2017, at 8:38 am, Bob Turner wrote:
>
>
>
> flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com wrote:
>> The flap change was done for certification .... has something to do with ability
to climb with full flaps during a go around.
>> Linn
>>
>>
>> --
>
>
> yes, it was done in conjunction with an increase in gross weight. There's an
STC available for older 172s.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467767#467767
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unuseable Full |
I too strive to always land with at least 10 gallons, roughly an hour of cruise
burn. However, if I'm going to be even close I burn most of the left tank out,
not enough to go quiet, so the majority is in the right tank to minimize any
chance of the fuel pickup becoming uncovered with fuel during approach and landing.
Just a technique.
Marcus
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:49 PM, John MacCallum wrote:
>
>
> Well I ran my Right tank empty accidentally in purpose while in the Circuit at
Bathurst, NSW Aus. When I checked how much there was left in the tank I got
120 ml out of it. But I also had the engine die on me when doing a big side slip
in level flight for an extended time. The tank was indicating 17 ltrs at the
time. It certainly got my attention real quick as I was only 700 ft agl at the
time. Anyway from that event I made a note to myself to not go below 20 ltrs
(5.2 Galls US) on any tank while in flight.
>
> Cheers John MacCalum
> RV10 41016
> VH-DUU
>
>
>> On 29 Mar 2017, at 8:38 am, Bob Turner wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com wrote:
>>> The flap change was done for certification .... has something to do with ability
to climb with full flaps during a go around.
>>> Linn
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>
>> yes, it was done in conjunction with an increase in gross weight. There's an
STC available for older 172s.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467767#467767
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Garmin GPS antenna |
The G3X Installation Manual says, in a "Note" on page 20-1, that "GA35, GA36 and
GA37 antennas cannot be used with GDU 37X/4XX units".
Does anybody know why?
(I'm asking because I bought the pretty expensive GA35, as an excellent GPS antenna,
before reading this "Note")
Thanks
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com> |
Anyone have intel on the new YD upgrade? They say it will be operated by existing
servos and that an RV10 specific "kit" will be available soon. Interesting.
Early talk was that a YD would inherently include rudder trim but that would
be an engineeering feat of magic in my mind using only current servos. Maybe
by current servos they mean an additional servo from current stock.
Happy that they keep improving the product line.
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Flew May 10 2014
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467878#467878
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Garmin GPS antenna |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Not sure if this is the sole reason, but in the specs I see a slight mis-match
in the dc power needed by the antenna, and what's furnished by the GDU37:
GA 35 needs: 4.0 to 5.0 volts at 60 ma
GDU37 furnishes 4.5 to 5.5 volts at up to 50 ma.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467882#467882
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
A new servo of the same style hooked to the rudder cables. With the Yd installed
it holds the ball in the center.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 31, 2017, at 1:43 PM, woxofswa wrote:
>
>
> Anyone have intel on the new YD upgrade? They say it will be operated by existing
servos and that an RV10 specific "kit" will be available soon. Interesting.
Early talk was that a YD would inherently include rudder trim but that would
be an engineeering feat of magic in my mind using only current servos. Maybe
by current servos they mean an additional servo from current stock.
> Happy that they keep improving the product line.
>
> --------
> Myron Nelson
> Mesa, AZ
> Flew May 10 2014
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467878#467878
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com> |
I have a YD on my 10 and it uses the same type of servo as the pitch servo.
That may be what they meant. I don't see how it could be the actual same
servo.
Shannon
On Mar 31, 2017 4:23 PM, "Jesse Saint" wrote:
>
> A new servo of the same style hooked to the rudder cables. With the Yd
> installed it holds the ball in the center.
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> 352-427-0285
> jesse(at)saintaviation.com
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Mar 31, 2017, at 1:43 PM, woxofswa wrote:
> >
> >
> > Anyone have intel on the new YD upgrade? They say it will be operated
> by existing servos and that an RV10 specific "kit" will be available soon.
> Interesting. Early talk was that a YD would inherently include rudder trim
> but that would be an engineeering feat of magic in my mind using only
> current servos. Maybe by current servos they mean an additional servo from
> current stock.
> > Happy that they keep improving the product line.
> >
> > --------
> > Myron Nelson
> > Mesa, AZ
> > Flew May 10 2014
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467878#467878
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin GPS antenna |
Thank you Bob
Could that be for so tiny differences?
Does that makes sense to the electronic experts in this list?
Thanks
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
No dia 31/03/2017, s 20:40, Bob Turner escreveu:
>
> Not sure if this is the sole reason, but in the specs I see a slight mis-match
in the dc power needed by the antenna, and what's furnished by the GDU37:
> GA 35 needs: 4.0 to 5.0 volts at 60 ma
> GDU37 furnishes 4.5 to 5.5 volts at up to 50 ma.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467882#467882
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Garmin GPS antenna |
| From: | "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com> |
I don't think the problem is with the voltage or the current draw. They can't be
cutting it that close. It most likely has to do with using a WAAS antenna on
a non-WAAS receiver.
You're better off using one of their recommended antennas. Probably way cheaper
too.
Lenny
trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt wrote:
> Thank you Bob
>
> Could that be for so tiny differences?
>
>
--------
Lenny
N311LZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467904#467904
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Garmin GPS antenna |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Lenny Iszak wrote:
> I don't think the problem is with the voltage or the current draw. They can't
be cutting it that close.
> ]
If the antenna really needs 60 ma and the box's max really is 50, it could be that
simple. Remember many of these antennas were not designed to match a Garmin
box - they are off the shelf OEM designs with a Garmin label slapped on.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467916#467916
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | LSE Plasma III - Timing |
Closing in on the big day. The big ole girl has been weighed and the last
pesky oil leak mystery has finally been solved.
I need to double check the timing on my LSE Plasma III ignition to confirm
the timing is still within specs since I received the engine from Aerosport
Power. I've read the LSE documents regarding timing the system, but I
still have questions about the process.
Does anyone have a link to a website that describes the process to checkout
the installation? Perhaps it can fill in a few gaps I have with the
documentation.
Thanks
Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Antennas and other Dark Arts |
| From: | "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Hi
My -10 has three Comant anntennas (two bent whip comm) and one cvat's whiskers
VOR/ILS under the tail.
For my new project I have been wondering about alternatives. For example, does
anyone have real world experience wit the Bob Archer wing tip NAV and COMM antennas.
I have an Archer NAV antenna that I didn't install.
Has anyone tried bonding a comm antenna into the -10 fiberglass canopy. Is this
even possible?
It would be nice to hide the antennas if it can be done effectively. I am quite
interested in what others have done.
Inquiring minds need to know
Les
C-GCWZ flying
C-GROK some assembly required
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468065#468065
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | Antennas and other Dark Arts |
I have the Archer Nav antennas...one in each wing. I have a Garmin 430 and
a Garmin SL30. Reception is good, not great. I have a splitter for the GS
signal.
I have Comant antennas for comm.
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 kearney
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 9:50 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Antennas and other Dark Arts
Hi
My -10 has three Comant anntennas (two bent whip comm) and one cvat's
whiskers VOR/ILS under the tail.
For my new project I have been wondering about alternatives. For example,
does anyone have real world experience wit the Bob Archer wing tip NAV and
COMM antennas. I have an Archer NAV antenna that I didn't install.
Has anyone tried bonding a comm antenna into the -10 fiberglass canopy. Is
this even possible?
It would be nice to hide the antennas if it can be done effectively. I am
quite interested in what others have done.
Inquiring minds need to know
Les
C-GCWZ flying
C-GROK some assembly required
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468065#468065
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antennas and other Dark Arts |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Keep in mind that VORs transmit horizontally polarized signals, while coms are
vertically polarized. So you want the antennas the same way. There are lots of
small horizontal GS antennas embedded in the fiberglass roof, or even at the
top of the windscreen on some Cessnas. They work fine. For com, you'll need to
get it as vertical as possible. Most of the vertical antennas are 1/4 wave, and
need a good ground plane to work. This will be tricky on the cabin roof.
I have two Archers-the VOR antenna in one wingtip, the com in the other. Make sure
you follow installation directions and have a good connection between the
'ground leg' and the wing rib. For the com, I mounted the ground leg as high as
I could, then bent the leading edge down as far as possible, to get at least
some vertical polarization. I'd say the nav antenna works fine-rock solid on
ILS signals, and almost as good as an external dipole on distant VORs. The wingtip
com is just fair - not vertical enough. While my belly whip gets the ATIS
30 miles out, I need to be within 20 miles for the wingtip. I use it for my backup
com, and for that I think it's okay.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468071#468071
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antennas and other Dark Arts |
I have Archer antenna in each wing tip for GTN650 and SL30. Seems to work
fine.
A friend put Archer com antenna in one wing and nav in the other. The com
has to be mounted with vertical orientation.
It worked okay until he used a metallic paint on wing tip. That cut his
usable range down under 10 miles.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Rene wrote:
>
> I have the Archer Nav antennas...one in each wing. I have a Garmin 430 and
> a Garmin SL30. Reception is good, not great. I have a splitter for the GS
> signal.
>
> I have Comant antennas for comm.
>
> 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 kearney
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 9:50 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Antennas and other Dark Arts
>
>
> Hi
>
> My -10 has three Comant anntennas (two bent whip comm) and one cvat's
> whiskers VOR/ILS under the tail.
>
> For my new project I have been wondering about alternatives. For example,
> does anyone have real world experience wit the Bob Archer wing tip NAV and
> COMM antennas. I have an Archer NAV antenna that I didn't install.
>
> Has anyone tried bonding a comm antenna into the -10 fiberglass canopy. Is
> this even possible?
>
> It would be nice to hide the antennas if it can be done effectively. I am
> quite interested in what others have done.
>
> Inquiring minds need to know
>
> Les
>
> C-GCWZ flying
> C-GROK some assembly required
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468065#468065
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Antennas and other Dark Arts |
The Archer wingtip NAV antennas work pretty darned well. The Comm's will
"work" (and I use that term loosely), but not anywhere near the same as an
external whip or bent whip. Same with the bonded in versions in the canopy,
gear leg, et.al that have been tried in every configuration for many years.
Save yourself the hassle (believe me when I say "been there done that" on
both my own planes as well as customer planes) and just put the COMM
antennas externally on the fuselage. It'd be sad to have good radios
(whichever ones you use) be hamstrung by sub-par antennas.
Just my 2 cents as usual (but this one I have some rather extensive
firsthand knowledge of).
Cheers,
Stein
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of kearney
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 10:50 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Antennas and other Dark Arts
Hi
My -10 has three Comant anntennas (two bent whip comm) and one cvat's
whiskers VOR/ILS under the tail.
For my new project I have been wondering about alternatives. For example,
does anyone have real world experience wit the Bob Archer wing tip NAV and
COMM antennas. I have an Archer NAV antenna that I didn't install.
Has anyone tried bonding a comm antenna into the -10 fiberglass canopy. Is
this even possible?
It would be nice to hide the antennas if it can be done effectively. I am
quite interested in what others have done.
Inquiring minds need to know
Les
C-GCWZ flying
C-GROK some assembly required
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468065#468065
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antennas and other Dark Arts |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
My experience matches Stein's advice.
I originally had an Archer Comm and Nav with the Comm mounted as
vertical as possible in the tip per everyone's advice. They were both
attached to the G430. It 'worked' but found it often lacking the
necessary range at times. I also had an SL30 with a bent Comant which
quickly became the primary Comm radio. The G430 Comm was relegated to
ATIS and Ground.
But the whole purpose of 2 radios is to have backup, right? At the
furthest possible distance from home on my longest CC flight to date, my
SL30 Comm failed. Turned out that the G430 with the Archer Comm just
wasn't enough to comfortably fly across the US on IFR plans in VMC
conditions.
So, while I was comfortable flying with one Comm (and a handheld), I had
to stop and switch antennas before we could continue. The difference
was immediately noticeable; the bent Comant was far superior to the
Archer Comm on the same radio.
When I got home I installed a second Comant on the belly. Though there
are many variables in radio/antenna installations I slowly began to
realize that the G430 performed slightly better than the SL30, using
virtually identical antennas. The SL30 remains my primary but if I
ever have a reception/transmission issues, I go to the G430. (the last
step would be to swap antennas and see if that situation remains the same).
I would add that I split the Archer Nav antenna between the 2 boxes and
it performs satisfactorily, particularly during RNAV approaches.
Bill "wondering if my panel is getting a bit long in the tooth like its
pilot" Watson
On 4/5/2017 4:52 PM, Stein Bruch wrote:
>
> The Archer wingtip NAV antennas work pretty darned well. The Comm's will
> "work" (and I use that term loosely), but not anywhere near the same as an
> external whip or bent whip. Same with the bonded in versions in the canopy,
> gear leg, et.al that have been tried in every configuration for many years.
> Save yourself the hassle (believe me when I say "been there done that" on
> both my own planes as well as customer planes) and just put the COMM
> antennas externally on the fuselage. It'd be sad to have good radios
> (whichever ones you use) be hamstrung by sub-par antennas.
>
> Just my 2 cents as usual (but this one I have some rather extensive
> firsthand knowledge of).
>
> Cheers,
> Stein
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of kearney
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 10:50 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Antennas and other Dark Arts
>
>
> Hi
>
> My -10 has three Comant anntennas (two bent whip comm) and one cvat's
> whiskers VOR/ILS under the tail.
>
> For my new project I have been wondering about alternatives. For example,
> does anyone have real world experience wit the Bob Archer wing tip NAV and
> COMM antennas. I have an Archer NAV antenna that I didn't install.
>
> Has anyone tried bonding a comm antenna into the -10 fiberglass canopy. Is
> this even possible?
>
> It would be nice to hide the antennas if it can be done effectively. I am
> quite interested in what others have done.
>
> Inquiring minds need to know
>
> Les
>
> C-GCWZ flying
> C-GROK some assembly required
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468065#468065
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antennas and other Dark Arts |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Bill,
You could take that Archer com antenna, and lay it flat in the wing tip
and use it as a second nav antenna. That would eliminate need for a
splitter and give each nav radio close to double the signal strength.
On 4/5/2017 4:03 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>
> I would add that I split the Archer Nav antenna between the 2 boxes and
> it performs satisfactorily, particularly during RNAV approaches.
>
> Bill "wondering if my panel is getting a bit long in the tooth like its
> pilot" Watson
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doc <docclv(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Bob Archer Wing Tip Antennas |
Les: We installed a pair of Bob Archer VOR/Loc antennas 5+ years ago.
They have worked faultlessly.
Doc N123CV # 41087
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antennas and other Dark Arts |
| From: | "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Hi
Thanks to everyone for the comments. I may try the wing tip Archer NAV antenna,
perhaps two, rather than the whisker antenna.
This brings me to the comm antenna(s). Is there any significant difference between
the RAMI and COMANT comm antennas?
Cheers
Les
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468089#468089
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antennas and other Dark Arts |
Just out of curiosity, two VOR antennas implies you plan on two VOR receivers.
Wondering why you would do that.
Carl
No whiskers on any of my planes and never will be!
> On Apr 6, 2017, at 11:41 AM, kearney wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> Thanks to everyone for the comments. I may try the wing tip Archer NAV antenna,
perhaps two, rather than the whisker antenna.
>
> This brings me to the comm antenna(s). Is there any significant difference between
the RAMI and COMANT comm antennas?
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468089#468089
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antennas and other Dark Arts |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Thanks for that Kelly.
Honestly, I'm rarely using the Nav radios except for those Class B ILSs
where the reception is more than adequate.
On 4/5/2017 8:19 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Bill,
> You could take that Archer com antenna, and lay it flat in the wing
> tip and use it as a second nav antenna. That would eliminate need for
> a splitter and give each nav radio close to double the signal strength.
>
> On 4/5/2017 4:03 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>
>>
>> I would add that I split the Archer Nav antenna between the 2 boxes and
>> it performs satisfactorily, particularly during RNAV approaches.
>>
>> Bill "wondering if my panel is getting a bit long in the tooth like its
>> pilot" Watson
>>
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antennas and other Dark Arts |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
In my case it's because the G430 and the SL30 both have Nav radios that
are rarely used. That's why the the performance of one split antenna to
drive both works fine.
Though Kelly's thought of converting the Archer Comm to Nav would be a
slightly better backup situation than I have now.
On 4/6/2017 12:40 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity, two VOR antennas implies you plan on two VOR receivers.
Wondering why you would do that.
>
> Carl
> No whiskers on any of my planes and never will be!
>
>> On Apr 6, 2017, at 11:41 AM, kearney wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Thanks to everyone for the comments. I may try the wing tip Archer NAV antenna,
perhaps two, rather than the whisker antenna.
>>
>> This brings me to the comm antenna(s). Is there any significant difference between
the RAMI and COMANT comm antennas?
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Les
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468089#468089
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Belue <kdb.rv10(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Chelton white screen |
I powered up my RV10 the other day and one of the Chelton displays came up
with a white screen, which looked liked the backlight was on, but nothing
else was working. The other display operated normally. Have any of you seen
this before?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Home <bdgillespie215(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chelton white screen |
I am sure that others will chime in but if you are not aware, Tim O. has an e
xcellent site built http://www.cheltonefispilots.com/ that may help. I had s
ome other issues (hard drive failure) that I panicked over that got resolved
fairly easily. If I recall correctly, some folks were able to re-seat the r
ibbon cables to the screen and help out. There is a lot of good info there o
n opening up and correcting some of the common problems.
Byron
N253RV
Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 6, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Kevin Belue wrote:
>
> I powered up my RV10 the other day and one of the Chelton displays came up
with a white screen, which looked liked the backlight was on, but nothing e
lse was working. The other display operated normally. Have any of you seen t
his before?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chelton white screen |
That's correct, thanks Byron.
I would say that at least 50% of the time, people who have issues can fix th
em by opening the box and pulling some of the sections apart and re-seating t
hem. And, replacing a drive is not all that hard. The hardest part is that
some components from that era get more and more scarce as time goes on.
So try some self repair before sending it out. If you send it out you risk s
hipping damage that may be permanent due to these not being made anymore.
Tim
> On Apr 6, 2017, at 2:51 PM, Home wrote:
>
> I am sure that others will chime in but if you are not aware, Tim O. has a
n excellent site built http://www.cheltonefispilots.com/ that may help. I ha
d some other issues (hard drive failure) that I panicked over that got resol
ved fairly easily. If I recall correctly, some folks were able to re-seat th
e ribbon cables to the screen and help out. There is a lot of good info ther
e on opening up and correcting some of the common problems.
>
> Byron
> N253RV
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Apr 6, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Kevin Belue wrote:
>>
>> I powered up my RV10 the other day and one of the Chelton displays came u
p with a white screen, which looked liked the backlight was on, but nothing e
lse was working. The other display operated normally. Have any of you seen t
his before?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antennas and other Dark Arts |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Kellym wrote:
> Bill,
> You could take that Archer com antenna, and lay it flat in the wing tip
> and use it as a second nav antenna. That would eliminate need for a
> splitter and give each nav radio close to double the signal strength.
>
> On 4/5/2017 4:03 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> > I would add that I split the Archer Nav antenna between the 2 boxes and
> > it performs satisfactorily, particularly during RNAV approaches.
> >
> > Bill "wondering if my panel is getting a bit long in the tooth like its
> > pilot" Watson
> >
> >
>
Remember that the com antenna is a bit (10%) shorter than the nav antenna, so it's
not optimized for nav frequencies. Whether it's better or worse than the 2x
loss of a splitter, I don't know.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468099#468099
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Belue <kdb.rv10(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chelton white screen |
I agree with you on possibility of damage from shipping. I plan to take it
apart and reseat cables and check it out as you suggest Tim. I design
equipment similar to this, so it's not something new to me in general, but
I want to collect insight and experience from anyone who has had problems
so I don't waste time on something that's already been done. I appreciate
the previous comments and suggestions. I have a login for Tim's Chelton
website, but forgot my login. Tim - can you tell what my user name is? I
don't have enough info to retrieve my password...
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
> That's correct, thanks Byron.
> I would say that at least 50% of the time, people who have issues can fix
> them by opening the box and pulling some of the sections apart and
> re-seating them. And, replacing a drive is not all that hard. The hardest
> part is that some components from that era get more and more scarce as time
> goes on.
> So try some self repair before sending it out. If you send it out you risk
> shipping damage that may be permanent due to these not being made anymore.
> Tim
>
> On Apr 6, 2017, at 2:51 PM, Home wrote:
>
> I am sure that others will chime in but if you are not aware, Tim O. has
> an excellent site built http://www.cheltonefispilots.com/ that may help.
> I had some other issues (hard drive failure) that I panicked over that got
> resolved fairly easily. If I recall correctly, some folks were able to
> re-seat the ribbon cables to the screen and help out. There is a lot of
> good info there on opening up and correcting some of the common problems.
>
> Byron
> N253RV
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 6, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Kevin Belue wrote:
>
> I powered up my RV10 the other day and one of the Chelton displays came up
> with a white screen, which looked liked the backlight was on, but nothing
> else was working. The other display operated normally. Have any of you seen
> this before?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Miller <gengrumpy(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chelton white screen |
Kevin,
When you pull yours apart to re-seat them, I suggest that you (1) use
some contact cleaner on the contacts and (2) examine the ribbon
connectors very closely. I found that one of mine had a very slight
puncture in a single strand from how things got layered during the
original build. I chased that gremlin for several years before
discovering that puncture.
grumpy
> On Apr 6, 2017, at 3:31 PM, Kevin Belue wrote:
>
> I agree with you on possibility of damage from shipping. I plan to
take it apart and reseat cables and check it out as you suggest Tim. I
design equipment similar to this, so it's not something new to me in
general, but I want to collect insight and experience from anyone who
has had problems so I don't waste time on something that's already been
done. I appreciate the previous comments and suggestions. I have a login
for Tim's Chelton website, but forgot my login. Tim - can you tell what
my user name is? I don't have enough info to retrieve my password...
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Tim Olson > wrote:
> That's correct, thanks Byron.
> I would say that at least 50% of the time, people who have issues can
fix them by opening the box and pulling some of the sections apart and
re-seating them. And, replacing a drive is not all that hard. The
hardest part is that some components from that era get more and more
scarce as time goes on.
> So try some self repair before sending it out. If you send it out you
risk shipping damage that may be permanent due to these not being made
anymore.
> Tim
>
> On Apr 6, 2017, at 2:51 PM, Home > wrote:
>
>> I am sure that others will chime in but if you are not aware, Tim O.
has an excellent site built http://www.cheltonefispilots.com/
<http://www.cheltonefispilots.com/> that may help. I had some other
issues (hard drive failure) that I panicked over that got resolved
fairly easily. If I recall correctly, some folks were able to re-seat
the ribbon cables to the screen and help out. There is a lot of good
info there on opening up and correcting some of the common problems.
>>
>> Byron
>> N253RV
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Apr 6, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Kevin Belue > wrote:
>>
>>> I powered up my RV10 the other day and one of the Chelton displays
came up with a white screen, which looked liked the backlight was on,
but nothing else was working. The other display operated normally. Have
any of you seen this before?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Antenna Followup |
| From: | "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Hi
I have another antenna follow up question. If I install a Company bent whip antenna,
is there any reason I can't use it for two comm radios through the use
of a splitter?
Cheers
Les
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468136#468136
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Followup |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Yes. There is no reliable way to isolate the transmitter on one com from
the receiver on the other com, creating a likely hazard of frying the
receiver on one while transmitting on the other.
Just install 2 bent whip antennas, installed as far apart as you can
conveniently get them.
On 4/7/2017 7:06 PM, kearney wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I have another antenna follow up question. If I install a Company bent whip
antenna, is there any reason I can't use it for two comm radios through the use
of a splitter?
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468136#468136
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Followup |
| From: | "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Hmmm
That sounds way too logical. But I guess two bent whip Comants is the way to go.
Thanks Kelly
Cheers
Les
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468138#468138
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
I was doing a run up the other day and noticed that I had a dead cylinder
on #2 when running on the mags. Further checking showed a bad plug...
I'm still not completely happy with what I'm seeing as I've seen suspect
signs that other cylinders are dropping off intermittently on the mag too.
We can get into the trouble shooting in another thread at a future time if
this doesn't resolve the issues.
At this point, after having found one bad plug and having questions of the
others, I'm going to go ahead and replace all 6 (Mag) and then re-test. I
suspect the box was dropped in one of the many freight trips they've made
over their lifetime.
What seems to be the spark plug of choice? I have 9:1 pistons with a
Lightspeed Ignition (Top) and a Slick Impulse Mag (Bottom).
I've heard mixed reviews on Champion plugs. I've heard great reviews on
the Tempest. But I haven't heard any reviews on Tempest Iridium (assuming
they exist?) plugs.
What seems to be the plug of choice? I'd really like to get to an iridium
plug if possible. Currently have Tempest UREM38E.
Thanks,
Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com> |
Phil,
I am running Tempest fine wire in all 12 spots on my engine. I have just
over 200 hours with zero issues so far. In fact, they looked brand new when
I pulled them at my condition inspection (150ish hrs). The downside is they
are insanely expensive.
Shannon
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:55 AM Phillip Perry wrote:
> I was doing a run up the other day and noticed that I had a dead cylinder
> on #2 when running on the mags. Further checking showed a bad plug...
> I'm still not completely happy with what I'm seeing as I've seen suspect
> signs that other cylinders are dropping off intermittently on the mag too.
> We can get into the trouble shooting in another thread at a future time if
> this doesn't resolve the issues.
>
> At this point, after having found one bad plug and having questions of the
> others, I'm going to go ahead and replace all 6 (Mag) and then re-test. I
> suspect the box was dropped in one of the many freight trips they've made
> over their lifetime.
>
> What seems to be the spark plug of choice? I have 9:1 pistons with a
> Lightspeed Ignition (Top) and a Slick Impulse Mag (Bottom).
>
> I've heard mixed reviews on Champion plugs. I've heard great reviews on
> the Tempest. But I haven't heard any reviews on Tempest Iridium (assuming
> they exist?) plugs.
>
> What seems to be the plug of choice? I'd really like to get to an iridium
> plug if possible. Currently have Tempest UREM38E.
>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
I only go iridium. I just had mine out after 100 hours on the RV14. It came with
standard plugs which I replaced before I ran the engine with iridium. I had
absolutely no lead fouling on the plugs at 100 hours.
Tim
> On Apr 9, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> I was doing a run up the other day and noticed that I had a dead cylinder on
#2 when running on the mags. Further checking showed a bad plug... I'm still
not completely happy with what I'm seeing as I've seen suspect signs that other
cylinders are dropping off intermittently on the mag too. We can get into
the trouble shooting in another thread at a future time if this doesn't resolve
the issues.
>
> At this point, after having found one bad plug and having questions of the others,
I'm going to go ahead and replace all 6 (Mag) and then re-test. I suspect
the box was dropped in one of the many freight trips they've made over their
lifetime.
>
> What seems to be the spark plug of choice? I have 9:1 pistons with a Lightspeed
Ignition (Top) and a Slick Impulse Mag (Bottom).
>
> I've heard mixed reviews on Champion plugs. I've heard great reviews on the
Tempest. But I haven't heard any reviews on Tempest Iridium (assuming they exist?)
plugs.
>
> What seems to be the plug of choice? I'd really like to get to an iridium plug
if possible. Currently have Tempest UREM38E.
>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
Do you know if the Tempest fine wire plugs have iridium electrodes, or are t
hey something different?
I've checked their site and can't seem to find it mentioned. You'd think th
at would be something they'd mention to justify the cost.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
>
> Phil,
> I am running Tempest fine wire in all 12 spots on my engine. I have just o
ver 200 hours with zero issues so far. In fact, they looked brand new when I
pulled them at my condition inspection (150ish hrs). The downside is they a
re insanely expensive.
>
> Shannon
>
>
>> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:55 AM Phillip Perry wrote
:
>> I was doing a run up the other day and noticed that I had a dead cylinder
on #2 when running on the mags. Further checking showed a bad plug... I'
m still not completely happy with what I'm seeing as I've seen suspect signs
that other cylinders are dropping off intermittently on the mag too. We ca
n get into the trouble shooting in another thread at a future time if this d
oesn't resolve the issues.
>>
>> At this point, after having found one bad plug and having questions of th
e others, I'm going to go ahead and replace all 6 (Mag) and then re-test. I
suspect the box was dropped in one of the many freight trips they've made o
ver their lifetime.
>>
>> What seems to be the spark plug of choice? I have 9:1 pistons with a Li
ghtspeed Ignition (Top) and a Slick Impulse Mag (Bottom).
>>
>> I've heard mixed reviews on Champion plugs. I've heard great reviews on t
he Tempest. But I haven't heard any reviews on Tempest Iridium (assuming t
hey exist?) plugs.
>>
>> What seems to be the plug of choice? I'd really like to get to an iridiu
m plug if possible. Currently have Tempest UREM38E.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
Yes, the fine wire are iridium. Just be careful to never bend the wire, as i
t is very fine and somewhat fragile. At least that's what tempest says, alt
hough I've never had an issue with them.
Tim
> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> Do you know if the Tempest fine wire plugs have iridium electrodes, or are
they something different?
>
> I've checked their site and can't seem to find it mentioned. You'd think t
hat would be something they'd mention to justify the cost.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
>>
>> Phil,
>> I am running Tempest fine wire in all 12 spots on my engine. I have just o
ver 200 hours with zero issues so far. In fact, they looked brand new when I
pulled them at my condition inspection (150ish hrs). The downside is they a
re insanely expensive.
>>
>> Shannon
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:55 AM Phillip Perry wrot
e:
>>> I was doing a run up the other day and noticed that I had a dead cylinde
r on #2 when running on the mags. Further checking showed a bad plug... I
'm still not completely happy with what I'm seeing as I've seen suspect sign
s that other cylinders are dropping off intermittently on the mag too. We c
an get into the trouble shooting in another thread at a future time if this d
oesn't resolve the issues.
>>>
>>> At this point, after having found one bad plug and having questions of t
he others, I'm going to go ahead and replace all 6 (Mag) and then re-test.
I suspect the box was dropped in one of the many freight trips they've made
over their lifetime.
>>>
>>> What seems to be the spark plug of choice? I have 9:1 pistons with a L
ightspeed Ignition (Top) and a Slick Impulse Mag (Bottom).
>>>
>>> I've heard mixed reviews on Champion plugs. I've heard great reviews on
the Tempest. But I haven't heard any reviews on Tempest Iridium (assuming
they exist?) plugs.
>>>
>>> What seems to be the plug of choice? I'd really like to get to an iridi
um plug if possible. Currently have Tempest UREM38E.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com> |
I really don't think so, but I'm not sure.
Shannon
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:31 AM Phillip Perry wrote:
> Do you know if the Tempest fine wire plugs have iridium electrodes, or are
> they something different?
>
> I've checked their site and can't seem to find it mentioned. You'd think
> that would be something they'd mention to justify the cost.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
>
> Phil,
> I am running Tempest fine wire in all 12 spots on my engine. I have just
> over 200 hours with zero issues so far. In fact, they looked brand new when
> I pulled them at my condition inspection (150ish hrs). The downside is they
> are insanely expensive.
>
> Shannon
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:55 AM Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> I was doing a run up the other day and noticed that I had a dead cylinder
> on #2 when running on the mags. Further checking showed a bad plug...
> I'm still not completely happy with what I'm seeing as I've seen suspect
> signs that other cylinders are dropping off intermittently on the mag too.
> We can get into the trouble shooting in another thread at a future time if
> this doesn't resolve the issues.
>
> At this point, after having found one bad plug and having questions of the
> others, I'm going to go ahead and replace all 6 (Mag) and then re-test. I
> suspect the box was dropped in one of the many freight trips they've made
> over their lifetime.
>
> What seems to be the spark plug of choice? I have 9:1 pistons with a
> Lightspeed Ignition (Top) and a Slick Impulse Mag (Bottom).
>
> I've heard mixed reviews on Champion plugs. I've heard great reviews on
> the Tempest. But I haven't heard any reviews on Tempest Iridium (assuming
> they exist?) plugs.
>
> What seems to be the plug of choice? I'd really like to get to an iridium
> plug if possible. Currently have Tempest UREM38E.
>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com> |
I have around 200 hours on the Tempest UREM38S finewire plugs. They always look
clean and the engine is idling much smoother. I was concerned at first seeing
how those center iridium electrodes were welded in. I was told by Tempest and
a bunch of others who were running these for hundreds of hours that they never
come apart. Ordered 12 of them. One of them had a really bad weld. Called them
up and they overnighted me a new one. Tempest is awesome!
Yes, they are expensive but long therm these are the cheaper ones.
Be very careful trying to gap these plugs, when you bend the iridium electrode
it can pop off the weld...
Lenny
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468191#468191
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com> |
Hm, looks like a missed marketing opportunity for them:)
It's mentioned here:
http://www.tempestplus.com/Portals/0/PDFs/Tempest%20Spark%20Plugs%20-%20Where%20its%20made.pdf
and here:
http://www.tempestplus.com/Portals/0/PDFs/Temepst%20OilFilter-SparkPlug%204page.pdf
and here (page 6) they talk about not bending the iridium electrodes:
http://www.tempestplus.com/Portals/0/PDFs/TechTips/Light%20My%20Fire%200813.pdf
Lenny
philperry9 wrote:
> Do you know if the Tempest fine wire plugs have iridium electrodes, or are they
something different?
>
>
> I've checked their site and can't seem to find it mentioned. You'd think that
would be something they'd mention to justify the cost.
>
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468193#468193
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Well, in spite of my requesting Tempest plugs, my overhaul shop
installed new Champions. Later, I acquired at low cost 8 champion
iridium plugs. I installed 6 of the iridium as soon as I got them on the
top positions.So I have a mixed bag. I pulled the plugs for my condition
inspection at 90 hours. All looked good. One massive tested high
resistance (about 7.5K) so it was replaced. I have never seen more than
120 rpm drop on runups, mostly 100-110. I have no lead balls at all, no
issues. I will eventually get some Tempest, but I'm not going to go drop
$900 on fine wires that are not needed. I know the resistors in the
Champions are likely to fail before the electrodes do.
I may go to some electronic system for one side eventually, but my
Bendix S-1200 have performed flawlessly.
On 4/9/2017 8:55 AM, Lenny Iszak wrote:
>
> I have around 200 hours on the Tempest UREM38S finewire plugs. They always look
clean and the engine is idling much smoother. I was concerned at first seeing
how those center iridium electrodes were welded in. I was told by Tempest and
a bunch of others who were running these for hundreds of hours that they never
come apart. Ordered 12 of them. One of them had a really bad weld. Called
them up and they overnighted me a new one. Tempest is awesome!
>
> Yes, they are expensive but long therm these are the cheaper ones.
>
> Be very careful trying to gap these plugs, when you bend the iridium electrode
it can pop off the weld...
>
> Lenny
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468191#468191
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
So I'm guessing they come pre-gapped?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Yes, the fine wire are iridium. Just be careful to never bend the wire, a
s it is very fine and somewhat fragile. At least that's what tempest says, a
lthough I've never had an issue with them.
> Tim
>
>> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>>
>> Do you know if the Tempest fine wire plugs have iridium electrodes, or ar
e they something different?
>>
>> I've checked their site and can't seem to find it mentioned. You'd think
that would be something they'd mention to justify the cost.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
>>>
>>> Phil,
>>> I am running Tempest fine wire in all 12 spots on my engine. I have just
over 200 hours with zero issues so far. In fact, they looked brand new when
I pulled them at my condition inspection (150ish hrs). The downside is they
are insanely expensive.
>>>
>>> Shannon
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:55 AM Phillip Perry wro
te:
>>>> I was doing a run up the other day and noticed that I had a dead cylind
er on #2 when running on the mags. Further checking showed a bad plug... I
'm still not completely happy with what I'm seeing as I've seen suspect sign
s that other cylinders are dropping off intermittently on the mag too. We c
an get into the trouble shooting in another thread at a future time if this d
oesn't resolve the issues.
>>>>
>>>> At this point, after having found one bad plug and having questions of t
he others, I'm going to go ahead and replace all 6 (Mag) and then re-test.
I suspect the box was dropped in one of the many freight trips they've made
over their lifetime.
>>>>
>>>> What seems to be the spark plug of choice? I have 9:1 pistons with a L
ightspeed Ignition (Top) and a Slick Impulse Mag (Bottom).
>>>>
>>>> I've heard mixed reviews on Champion plugs. I've heard great reviews o
n the Tempest. But I haven't heard any reviews on Tempest Iridium (assumin
g they exist?) plugs.
>>>>
>>>> What seems to be the plug of choice? I'd really like to get to an irid
ium plug if possible. Currently have Tempest UREM38E.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com> |
They do.
Shannon
On Apr 9, 2017 12:08 PM, "Phillip Perry" wrote:
> So I'm guessing they come pre-gapped?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Yes, the fine wire are iridium. Just be careful to never bend the wire,
> as it is very fine and somewhat fragile. At least that's what tempest
> says, although I've never had an issue with them.
> Tim
>
> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> Do you know if the Tempest fine wire plugs have iridium electrodes, or are
> they something different?
>
> I've checked their site and can't seem to find it mentioned. You'd think
> that would be something they'd mention to justify the cost.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
>
> Phil,
> I am running Tempest fine wire in all 12 spots on my engine. I have just
> over 200 hours with zero issues so far. In fact, they looked brand new when
> I pulled them at my condition inspection (150ish hrs). The downside is they
> are insanely expensive.
>
> Shannon
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:55 AM Phillip Perry wrote:
>
>> I was doing a run up the other day and noticed that I had a dead cylinder
>> on #2 when running on the mags. Further checking showed a bad plug...
>> I'm still not completely happy with what I'm seeing as I've seen suspect
>> signs that other cylinders are dropping off intermittently on the mag too.
>> We can get into the trouble shooting in another thread at a future time if
>> this doesn't resolve the issues.
>>
>> At this point, after having found one bad plug and having questions of
>> the others, I'm going to go ahead and replace all 6 (Mag) and then re-test.
>> I suspect the box was dropped in one of the many freight trips they've
>> made over their lifetime.
>>
>> What seems to be the spark plug of choice? I have 9:1 pistons with a
>> Lightspeed Ignition (Top) and a Slick Impulse Mag (Bottom).
>>
>> I've heard mixed reviews on Champion plugs. I've heard great reviews on
>> the Tempest. But I haven't heard any reviews on Tempest Iridium (assuming
>> they exist?) plugs.
>>
>> What seems to be the plug of choice? I'd really like to get to an
>> iridium plug if possible. Currently have Tempest UREM38E.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
That is basically what I found in all of the ones that I have purchased. I d
id not need to gap them at all as they were already in spec. As Lenny just p
roved, yes they are iridium for sure. All of the fine wire plugs would be, b
ecause the regular steel would erode too quickly.
For all practical purposes, the Arabian plugs will not grown at all. That is
why they last so long. The extra open area around the electrode only enhanc
es the ability or the plug to fire the fuel. So that is why people report b
etter performance or better idling.
Tim
> On Apr 9, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> So I'm guessing they come pre-gapped?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the fine wire are iridium. Just be careful to never bend the wire, a
s it is very fine and somewhat fragile. At least that's what tempest says, a
lthough I've never had an issue with them.
>> Tim
>>
>>> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you know if the Tempest fine wire plugs have iridium electrodes, or a
re they something different?
>>>
>>> I've checked their site and can't seem to find it mentioned. You'd thin
k that would be something they'd mention to justify the cost.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Phil,
>>>> I am running Tempest fine wire in all 12 spots on my engine. I have jus
t over 200 hours with zero issues so far. In fact, they looked brand new whe
n I pulled them at my condition inspection (150ish hrs). The downside is the
y are insanely expensive.
>>>>
>>>> Shannon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:55 AM Phillip Perry wr
ote:
>>>>> I was doing a run up the other day and noticed that I had a dead cylin
der on #2 when running on the mags. Further checking showed a bad plug...
I'm still not completely happy with what I'm seeing as I've seen suspect si
gns that other cylinders are dropping off intermittently on the mag too. We
can get into the trouble shooting in another thread at a future time if thi
s doesn't resolve the issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> At this point, after having found one bad plug and having questions of
the others, I'm going to go ahead and replace all 6 (Mag) and then re-test.
I suspect the box was dropped in one of the many freight trips they've ma
de over their lifetime.
>>>>>
>>>>> What seems to be the spark plug of choice? I have 9:1 pistons with a
Lightspeed Ignition (Top) and a Slick Impulse Mag (Bottom).
>>>>>
>>>>> I've heard mixed reviews on Champion plugs. I've heard great reviews o
n the Tempest. But I haven't heard any reviews on Tempest Iridium (assumin
g they exist?) plugs.
>>>>>
>>>>> What seems to be the plug of choice? I'd really like to get to an iri
dium plug if possible. Currently have Tempest UREM38E.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
Got them ordered and they should be here next week. I'll tell the kids
they're just going to have to work harder in school and get a scholarship.
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
> That is basically what I found in all of the ones that I have purchased. I
> did not need to gap them at all as they were already in spec. As Lenny
> just proved, yes they are iridium for sure. All of the fine wire plugs
> would be, because the regular steel would erode too quickly.
> For all practical purposes, the Arabian plugs will not grown at all. That
> is why they last so long. The extra open area around the electrode only
> enhances the ability or the plug to fire the fuel. So that is why people
> report better performance or better idling.
> Tim
>
> On Apr 9, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> So I'm guessing they come pre-gapped?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Yes, the fine wire are iridium. Just be careful to never bend the wire,
> as it is very fine and somewhat fragile. At least that's what tempest
> says, although I've never had an issue with them.
> Tim
>
> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> Do you know if the Tempest fine wire plugs have iridium electrodes, or are
> they something different?
>
> I've checked their site and can't seem to find it mentioned. You'd think
> that would be something they'd mention to justify the cost.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
>
> Phil,
> I am running Tempest fine wire in all 12 spots on my engine. I have just
> over 200 hours with zero issues so far. In fact, they looked brand new when
> I pulled them at my condition inspection (150ish hrs). The downside is they
> are insanely expensive.
>
> Shannon
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:55 AM Phillip Perry wrote:
>
>> I was doing a run up the other day and noticed that I had a dead cylinder
>> on #2 when running on the mags. Further checking showed a bad plug...
>> I'm still not completely happy with what I'm seeing as I've seen suspect
>> signs that other cylinders are dropping off intermittently on the mag too.
>> We can get into the trouble shooting in another thread at a future time if
>> this doesn't resolve the issues.
>>
>> At this point, after having found one bad plug and having questions of
>> the others, I'm going to go ahead and replace all 6 (Mag) and then re-test.
>> I suspect the box was dropped in one of the many freight trips they've
>> made over their lifetime.
>>
>> What seems to be the spark plug of choice? I have 9:1 pistons with a
>> Lightspeed Ignition (Top) and a Slick Impulse Mag (Bottom).
>>
>> I've heard mixed reviews on Champion plugs. I've heard great reviews on
>> the Tempest. But I haven't heard any reviews on Tempest Iridium (assuming
>> they exist?) plugs.
>>
>> What seems to be the plug of choice? I'd really like to get to an
>> iridium plug if possible. Currently have Tempest UREM38E.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
;). Look at it this way, you are protecting your ability to pay for college.
Because you will replace spark plugs far less often, and they are less less
likely to fail.
These may go to TBO.
Tim
> On Apr 9, 2017, at 1:11 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> Got them ordered and they should be here next week. I'll tell the kids th
ey're just going to have to work harder in school and get a scholarship.
>
>
>> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>> That is basically what I found in all of the ones that I have purchased. I
did not need to gap them at all as they were already in spec. As Lenny jus
t proved, yes they are iridium for sure. All of the fine wire plugs would be
, because the regular steel would erode too quickly.
>> For all practical purposes, the Arabian plugs will not grown at all. That
is why they last so long. The extra open area around the electrode only enh
ances the ability or the plug to fire the fuel. So that is why people repor
t better performance or better idling.
>> Tim
>>
>>> On Apr 9, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>>>
>>> So I'm guessing they come pre-gapped?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the fine wire are iridium. Just be careful to never bend the wire
, as it is very fine and somewhat fragile. At least that's what tempest say
s, although I've never had an issue with them.
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Phillip Perry wrot
e:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know if the Tempest fine wire plugs have iridium electrodes, or
are they something different?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've checked their site and can't seem to find it mentioned. You'd th
ink that would be something they'd mention to justify the cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Shannon Hicks wrot
e:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil,
>>>>>> I am running Tempest fine wire in all 12 spots on my engine. I have j
ust over 200 hours with zero issues so far. In fact, they looked brand new w
hen I pulled them at my condition inspection (150ish hrs). The downside is t
hey are insanely expensive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shannon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:55 AM Phillip Perry w
rote:
>>>>>>> I was doing a run up the other day and noticed that I had a dead cyl
inder on #2 when running on the mags. Further checking showed a bad plug..
. I'm still not completely happy with what I'm seeing as I've seen suspect s
igns that other cylinders are dropping off intermittently on the mag too. W
e can get into the trouble shooting in another thread at a future time if th
is doesn't resolve the issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At this point, after having found one bad plug and having questions o
f the others, I'm going to go ahead and replace all 6 (Mag) and then re-test
. I suspect the box was dropped in one of the many freight trips they've m
ade over their lifetime.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What seems to be the spark plug of choice? I have 9:1 pistons with
a Lightspeed Ignition (Top) and a Slick Impulse Mag (Bottom).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've heard mixed reviews on Champion plugs. I've heard great review
s on the Tempest. But I haven't heard any reviews on Tempest Iridium (assu
ming they exist?) plugs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What seems to be the plug of choice? I'd really like to get to an i
ridium plug if possible. Currently have Tempest UREM38E.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Phil
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> |
I went through a period of intermittent ignition problems: first on the
lightspeed and later on the mag. Major cause of both turned out to be
the wires.
Albert Gardner
RV-10 N991RV
Yuma, AZ
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillip Perry
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 7:52 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Spark Plugs
I was doing a run up the other day and noticed that I had a dead
cylinder on #2 when running on the mags. Further checking showed a bad
plug... I'm still not completely happy with what I'm seeing as I've
seen suspect signs that other cylinders are dropping off intermittently
on the mag too. We can get into the trouble shooting in another thread
at a future time if this doesn't resolve the issues.
At this point, after having found one bad plug and having questions of
the others, I'm going to go ahead and replace all 6 (Mag) and then
re-test. I suspect the box was dropped in one of the many freight
trips they've made over their lifetime.
What seems to be the spark plug of choice? I have 9:1 pistons with a
Lightspeed Ignition (Top) and a Slick Impulse Mag (Bottom).
I've heard mixed reviews on Champion plugs. I've heard great reviews on
the Tempest. But I haven't heard any reviews on Tempest Iridium
(assuming they exist?) plugs.
What seems to be the plug of choice? I'd really like to get to an
iridium plug if possible. Currently have Tempest UREM38E.
Thanks,
Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LSE Plasma III - Timing |
| From: | "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com> |
Did you ever find a procedure for verifying timing? Almost to that point and want
to be ready.
--------
Dave Ford
RV6 for sale
RV10 building
Cadillac, MI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=468381#468381
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SB 14-08-29 and life of nose shock disks |
Now that those flying have a few more years, any feedback on how much the
shock disks are compressing over time? Early achievers are over 10 yrs now?
I'm curious, as the exact same disks are used on all three gear legs of
Mooneys. On the older, short body style (2575 gross) they seem to last 20+
years.
On intermediate body (F,J&K models)(2740-2800 gross) they seem to last
10-15 yrs. On newer long body models with up to 3200 gross they are only
good for 5-7 yrs.
IIRC only a few doing the SB found cracks? Should the retaining bolt at the
top of the hat be tight or free to rotate when the plane is on gear with
weight on nose?
Trying to complete condition inspection.
Kelly
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Linn Walters wrote:
>
> I would think this comes under the heading of 'if it ain't broke ....
> don't fix it'.
> They will continue to compress, but the rate slows down over time. They
> should last for 10 years or more. I'd keep adding spacers until you see
> cracks in the elastomer.
> Linn
>
> On 9/17/2014 4:06 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>
>>
>> - I don't know about replacing the nose wheel elastomers. Afterall, they
>> are already compressed and 'set'. Thoughts?
February 27, 2017 - April 14, 2017
RV10-Archive.digest.vol-mm