RV10-Archive.digest.vol-nc

April 09, 2018 - June 10, 2018



________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RG-400 Coax
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Apr 09, 2018
One thing to add to Stein's comments. I've seen RG400 shipped with some good gooey glue put over the ends specifically to prevent internal corrosion. You probably want to make sure you buy from a good vendor who doesn't just have their cable stored in a damp environment that would wreck the cabling. Obviously that moisture is a problem. One other thing regarding 100' vs shorter. You may want to compare the 100' price vs just buying what you need. I'm not sure which would be the best price. But, RG400 is probably one of the easiest types of wire to estimate cost for in your plane before you buy it, since it's not used in as many circuits and you only use one strand at a time. So you can just estimate what you need and add a few feet and it may save you money buying NOT in bulk. Depends. And, as I'm not afraid to jump into the 400 vs other discussion, my opinion is I'd rather buy one type of wire and have it be the best wire I can build than buy 2 types. I don't have anything but RG400 in my planes. When the plane costs $100K+, saving a few dollars on wire isn't my goal. My goal is having an airplane in the end that is superior to what I would get if I bought most other airplanes. Tim On 04/09/2018 09:53 AM, Stein Bruch wrote: > > Without getting into the argument on technicalities or superiorities of one > over the other, I'll just provide my 2 cents on the import vs domestic. > > I've seen quite a bit of domestic as well as import wire, and like many > things that get imported what you see (or is advertised) is not always what > you get. We've seen some copycat "RG" (various spec's and types) that is a > pretty good knockoff, until you realize the plating on the wire strands is > tin (or even less) vs. true silver plated copper for domestically produced > mil spec. Speaking of copper, some of the conductors I've seen are just some > version of aluminum or pot metal, cleverly disguised. I've seen some that > corrodes badly/quickly, some that was laughable and some that was passable. > I'm always amazed at how much work some of the import companies will go > through to copy something so closely, only to produce garbage (that looks > good). > > Now I'm certainly not saying all import or surplus wire is that way - I've > seen some that is pretty good....but when you see it for ridiculously low > prices (below what someone could manufacture it for using the raw materials > that it's made out of) it's often true of the old mantra "if it sounds like > a duck and looks like a duck"...and speaking of surplus, I have seen quite a > bit of water/hurricane damaged wire with internal corrosion. Looks good on > the outside, not so much on the inside where the water has wicked up into > the wire. Again, not all surplus is a bad thing. Some is simply > surplus...but a good deal of it is someone passing of junk - literally. > This is true whether it be 400, 58, tefzel wire, and a lot of other things > (as we all know from experience). > > In some (not all) cases, you may have just stepped over a dollar to pick up > a dime. > > Just my 2 cents as usual! > > Cheers, > Stein > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Apr 09, 2018
Subject: Re: RG-400 Coax
Interesting that this discussion struck such a nerve. We all have choice, within some limits. I intended more what is "required" vs can we do better than the minimum. Choice based on what you already have or don't have. What do your EAA chapter members have left over from their project? Just like we can mount a turbo-charger if we want, although Van's recommends against it. We can do magnetos or all variety of electronic ignitions. We see the benefits...probably. Will it make enough difference to "justify" the cost? Depends on who does the accounting with what assumptions. We can put in high compression pistons and cold-air induction and port, polish and flow match the cylinders. All discernible changes...but do they make a big difference in the utility of the plane...all in the eye of the beholder. Whatever choices made will make it the best amateur built aircraft for you. Sent from my IBM-360 main frame On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > And, as I'm not afraid to jump into the 400 vs other discussion, > my opinion is I'd rather buy one type of wire and have it be the > best wire I can build than buy 2 types. I don't have anything > but RG400 in my planes. When the plane costs $100K+, saving > a few dollars on wire isn't my goal. My goal is having an airplane > in the end that is superior to what I would get if I bought most > other airplanes. > > Tim > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RG-400 Coax
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Apr 09, 2018
Hi Kelley Here is a little thread drift. In two weeks I will be going to "builder school" at AeroSport located in Kamloops BC. They will be building (with my *ahem* able assistance) a brand spanking new IO-540 from a Lycoming engine kit. This brings me to your list of *enhancements* and what I am installing. - Turbo nope (although the itch is still there) - Electronic Ignition - SDS EI/EFI check - 8.5:1 compression pistons - check - Port & polish - check - Cold air induction - check My flying -10 has the same setup except that it has mags. It dyno'd out at 287 HP (it was from Barrett Precision Engines). The extra HP is very nice to have when flying out of a high DA airport. It is just too much fun going over to the dark side. Cheers Les PS: Barret Engines are great folks and I would have bought another engine from them except the Aerosport option was just too attractive to pass up. I also have great respect for SDS and Ross Farnham. For those interested, his EI/EFI system is a piece of art. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479212#479212 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Baer <JBaer(at)LititzPP.com>
Date: Apr 09, 2018
Subject: Sun and Fun
Any RV-10 list members going to be at Sun and Fun? John Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tom Ganster <taganster(at)gmail.com>
Date: Apr 09, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun and Fun
I am here. Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 9, 2018, at 7:48 PM, John Baer wrote: > > > Any RV-10 list members going to be at Sun and Fun? > > John > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 09, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun and Fun
From: John Baer <jbaer(at)LititzPP.com>
How is it? Is there a place where you can just go and check out all the private planes that fly in for the day or week, or are they in a restricted area? John On 4/9/18, 7:54 PM, "Tom Ganster" wrote: > >I am here. > >Sent from my iPhone > >> On Apr 9, 2018, at 7:48 PM, John Baer wrote: >> >> >> Any RV-10 list members going to be at Sun and Fun? >> >> John >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lester <brian.lester(at)gmail.com>
Date: Apr 10, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun and Fun
SeKAmWxsIGJlIHRoZXJlIGxhdGVyIHRoaXMgd2Vlay4gSG9wZSBJIHJ1biBpbnRvIGEgZmV3IGJ1 aWxkZXJzLg0KDQotQnJpYW4NCk9uIE1vbiwgQXByIDksIDIwMTggYXQgODowMCBQTSBUb20gR2Fu c3RlciA8dGFnYW5zdGVyQGdtYWlsLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQoNCj4gLS0+IFJWMTAtTGlzdCBtZXNz YWdlIHBvc3RlZCBieTogVG9tIEdhbnN0ZXIgPHRhZ2Fuc3RlckBnbWFpbC5jb20+DQo+DQo+IEkg YW0gaGVyZS4NCj4NCj4gU2VudCBmcm9tIG15IGlQaG9uZQ0KPg0KPiA+IE9uIEFwciA5LCAyMDE4 LCBhdCA3OjQ4IFBNLCBKb2huIEJhZXIgPEpCYWVyQExpdGl0elBQLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQo+ID4N Cj4gPiAtLT4gUlYxMC1MaXN0IG1lc3NhZ2UgcG9zdGVkIGJ5OiBKb2huIEJhZXIgPEpCYWVyQExp dGl0elBQLmNvbT4NCj4gPg0KPiA+IEFueSBSVi0xMCBsaXN0IG1lbWJlcnMgZ29pbmcgdG8gYmUg YXQgU3VuIGFuZCBGdW4/DQo+ID4NCj4gPiBKb2huDQo+ID4NCj4gPiBTZW50IGZyb20gbXkgaVBo b25lDQo+ID4NCj4gPg0KPiA+DQo+ID4NCj4gXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCj4gXy09ICAgICAgICAgIC0gVGhlIFJW MTAtTGlzdCBFbWFpbCBGb3J1bSAtDQo+IF8tPSBVc2UgdGhlIE1hdHJvbmljcyBMaXN0IEZlYXR1 cmVzIE5hdmlnYXRvciB0byBicm93c2UNCj4gXy09IHRoZSBtYW55IExpc3QgdXRpbGl0aWVzIHN1 Y2ggYXMgTGlzdCBVbi9TdWJzY3JpcHRpb24sDQo+IF8tPSBBcmNoaXZlIFNlYXJjaCAmIERvd25s b2FkLCA3LURheSBCcm93c2UsIENoYXQsIEZBUSwNCj4gXy09IFBob3Rvc2hhcmUsIGFuZCBtdWNo IG11Y2ggbW9yZToNCj4gXy09DQo+IF8tPSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20v TmF2aWdhdG9yP1JWMTAtTGlzdA0KPiBfLT0NCj4gXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCj4gXy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg LSBNQVRST05JQ1MgV0VCIEZPUlVNUyAtDQo+IF8tPSBTYW1lIGdyZWF0IGNvbnRlbnQgYWxzbyBh dmFpbGFibGUgdmlhIHRoZSBXZWIgRm9ydW1zIQ0KPiBfLT0NCj4gXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly9m b3J1bXMubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbQ0KPiBfLT0NCj4gXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCj4gXy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAt IE5FVyBNQVRST05JQ1MgTElTVCBXSUtJIC0NCj4gXy09IEFkZCBzb21lIGluZm8gdG8gdGhlIE1h dHJvbmljcyBFbWFpbCBMaXN0IFdpa2khDQo+IF8tPSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vd2lraS5tYXRyb25p Y3MuY29tDQo+IF8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09DQo+IF8tPSAgICAgICAgICAgICAtIExpc3QgQ29udHJpYnV0aW9uIFdl YiBTaXRlIC0NCj4gXy09ICBUaGFuayB5b3UgZm9yIHlvdXIgZ2VuZXJvdXMgc3VwcG9ydCENCj4g Xy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLU1hdHQgRHJhbGxlLCBMaXN0IEFkbWlu Lg0KPiBfLT0gICAtLT4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL2NvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbg0KPiBf LT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PQ0KPg0KPg0KPg0KPg0K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Apr 09, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun and Fun
Im here all week. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 9, 2018, at 7:48 PM, John Baer wrote: > > > Any RV-10 list members going to be at Sun and Fun? > > John > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Apr 09, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun and Fun
You can walk around and look at every plane here. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 9, 2018, at 8:04 PM, John Baer wrote: > > > How is it? Is there a place where you can just go and check out all the private planes that fly in for the day or week, or are they in a restricted area? > > John > > > > > > >> On 4/9/18, 7:54 PM, "Tom Ganster" wrote: >> >> >> I am here. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Apr 9, 2018, at 7:48 PM, John Baer wrote: >>> >>> >>> Any RV-10 list members going to be at Sun and Fun? >>> >>> John >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Apr 10, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun and Fun
How are the conditions for an arrival Wed morning? Still on the fence due to other issues but hope to get there. Looking at the thunderstorms forecasted tonight though has me wondering if the parking area might be too soft? Marcus > On Apr 9, 2018, at 8:20 PM, Jesse Saint wrote: > > > You can walk around and look at every plane here. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > C: 352-427-0285 > F: 815-377-3694 > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Apr 9, 2018, at 8:04 PM, John Baer wrote: >> >> >> How is it? Is there a place where you can just go and check out all the private planes that fly in for the day or week, or are they in a restricted area? >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 4/9/18, 7:54 PM, "Tom Ganster" wrote: >>> >>> >>> I am here. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Apr 9, 2018, at 7:48 PM, John Baer wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Any RV-10 list members going to be at Sun and Fun? >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Apr 10, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun and Fun
It was rainy all day today. I havent checked how soft the ground is. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 10, 2018, at 7:52 PM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > > > How are the conditions for an arrival Wed morning? Still on the fence due to other issues but hope to get there. Looking at the thunderstorms forecasted tonight though has me wondering if the parking area might be too soft? > > Marcus > >> On Apr 9, 2018, at 8:20 PM, Jesse Saint wrote: >> >> >> You can walk around and look at every plane here. >> >> Jesse Saint >> Saint Aviation, Inc. >> jesse(at)saintaviation.com >> C: 352-427-0285 >> F: 815-377-3694 >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Apr 9, 2018, at 8:04 PM, John Baer wrote: >>> >>> >>> How is it? Is there a place where you can just go and check out all the private planes that fly in for the day or week, or are they in a restricted area? >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 4/9/18, 7:54 PM, "Tom Ganster" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I am here. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Apr 9, 2018, at 7:48 PM, John Baer wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Any RV-10 list members going to be at Sun and Fun? >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com>
Date: Apr 11, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun and Fun
We are here now in HBC. Ground is good. Shannon On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 8:11 PM Jesse Saint wrote: > > It was rainy all day today. I haven=99t checked how soft the ground is. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > C: 352-427-0285 > F: 815-377-3694 > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 10, 2018, at 7:52 PM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > > > > > > How are the conditions for an arrival Wed morning? Still on the fence > due to other issues but hope to get there. Looking at the thunderstorms > forecasted tonight though has me wondering if the parking area might be t oo > soft? > > > > Marcus > > > >> On Apr 9, 2018, at 8:20 PM, Jesse Saint > wrote: > >> > >> > >> You can walk around and look at every plane here. > >> > >> Jesse Saint > >> Saint Aviation, Inc. > >> jesse(at)saintaviation.com > >> C: 352-427-0285 > >> F: 815-377-3694 > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >>> On Apr 9, 2018, at 8:04 PM, John Baer wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> How is it? Is there a place where you can just go and check out all > the private planes that fly in for the day or week, or are they in a > restricted area? > >>> > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 4/9/18, 7:54 PM, "Tom Ganster" < > owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of taganster(at)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I am here. > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>> > >>>>> On Apr 9, 2018, at 7:48 PM, John Baer wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Any RV-10 list members going to be at Sun and Fun? > >>>>> > >>>>> John > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Apr 10, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun and Fun
Thanks, that=99s where we will be parking as well. May have to way un til Thursday now so probably will be even better. Marcus > On Apr 10, 2018, at 8:12 PM, Shannon Hicks wrote: > > We are here now in HBC. Ground is good. > > Shannon > >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 8:11 PM Jesse Saint wrote : >> >> It was rainy all day today. I haven=99t checked how soft the ground is. >> >> Jesse Saint >> Saint Aviation, Inc. >> jesse(at)saintaviation.com >> C: 352-427-0285 >> F: 815-377-3694 >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On Apr 10, 2018, at 7:52 PM, Marcus Cooper wrote: >> > >> > >> > How are the conditions for an arrival Wed morning? Still on the fence d ue to other issues but hope to get there. Looking at the thunderstorms forec asted tonight though has me wondering if the parking area might be too soft? >> > >> > Marcus >> > >> >> On Apr 9, 2018, at 8:20 PM, Jesse Saint wrot e: >> >> >> >> >> >> You can walk around and look at every plane here. >> >> >> >> Jesse Saint >> >> Saint Aviation, Inc. >> >> jesse(at)saintaviation.com >> >> C: 352-427-0285 >> >> F: 815-377-3694 >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >>> On Apr 9, 2018, at 8:04 PM, John Baer wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> How is it? Is there a place where you can just go and check out all t he private planes that fly in for the day or week, or are they in a restrict ed area? >> >>> >> >>> John >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On 4/9/18, 7:54 PM, "Tom Ganster" <owner-rv10-list-server@matronics. com on behalf of taganster(at)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I am here. >> >>>> >> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Apr 9, 2018, at 7:48 PM, John Baer wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Any RV-10 list members going to be at Sun and Fun? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> John >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> ========== >> -List" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matroni cs.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> ========== >> FORUMS - >> eferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com >> ========== >> WIKI - >> errer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com >> ========== >> b Site - >> -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >> rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/ contribution >> ========== >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Michael Sausen <michael(at)sausen.net>
Subject: SureFly
Date: Apr 13, 2018
Has anyone got anything from SureFly recently. Emailed them a couple times but got nothing back and the info on their website looks pretty old. Michael Sausen ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 13, 2018
From: bruce.hoppe(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Re: SureFly
I recently installed a SureFly ignition in place of the left mag on my RV10 . =C2-I also installed the iSTART system. =C2-Although I had several em ails back and forth, I found the most efficient way to learn about both pro ducts and order them, is to do it the old fashion way: =C2-Call them on t he phone. =C2-The delay could be because they are at Sun N Fun. =C2-I s aw them there. =C2-Also, I agree they should update the SureFly website. =C2-Many experimental aircraft component companies that I have dealt with have the same issue. =C2-They have websites, but do not seem to recogniz e the importance of product news to their potential and existing customers. =C2- Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad On Friday, April 13, 2018, 9:02 AM, Michael Sausen wro te: Has anyone got anything from SureFly recently.=C2- Emailed them a couple times but got nothing back and the info on their website looks pretty old. =C2- Michael Sausen =C2- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Larry Rosen <n205en(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: SureFly
Date: Apr 14, 2018
They are at sun n fun in Florida. That may be why you are not getting a res ponse. Sent from my mobile phone ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-rv10-list-server@matronic s.com> on behalf of Michael Sausen Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 8:52:25 AM Subject: RV10-List: SureFly Has anyone got anything from SureFly recently. Emailed them a couple times but got nothing back and the info on their website looks pretty old. Michael Sausen ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RV10 for Sale
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Apr 16, 2018
Hi In a week I go to build the engine for my project -10. Avionics have been ordered. This means my flying -10 needs a new home (preferably after KOSH but sooner if need be). To that end C-GCWZ is on the market. Basic specs are: IFR CofA BPE Engine with cold air induction and 8.5:1 pistons. Dyno'd at 287 HP Showplanes cowl MT three blade prop Dual AFS 4500 with dual ADHRS SL30 Garmin 430WAAS GTX 327 PMA8000X 2 axis TruTrak autopilot Mountain High 4 place built in oxygen AMSafe TSO'd Inertial real seat belts Leather interior If you know anyone who might be interested, please pass my contact info on. Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479369#479369 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Steven DeFord <riveteddragon(at)gmail.com>
Date: Apr 16, 2018
Subject: Re: RV10 for Sale
Know how amateur-built registration works between countries (ie, Canada->USA)? > On Apr 16, 2018, at 11:13, kearney wrote: > > > Hi > > In a week I go to build the engine for my project -10. Avionics have been ordered. This means my flying -10 needs a new home (preferably after KOSH but sooner if need be). > > To that end C-GCWZ is on the market. > > Basic specs are: > > IFR CofA > BPE Engine with cold air induction and 8.5:1 pistons. Dyno'd at 287 HP > Showplanes cowl > MT three blade prop > Dual AFS 4500 with dual ADHRS > SL30 > Garmin 430WAAS > GTX 327 > PMA8000X > 2 axis TruTrak autopilot > Mountain High 4 place built in oxygen > AMSafe TSO'd Inertial real seat belts > Leather interior > > If you know anyone who might be interested, please pass my contact info on. > > Cheers > > Les > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479369#479369 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Leffler <bob(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: RV10 for Sale
Date: Apr 16, 2018
It=92s not a big issue. Les will need to provide supporting docs to show its 51% amateur built. Get Outlook for iOS ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-rv10-list-server@matronic s.com> on behalf of Steven DeFord Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 2:29:03 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV10 for Sale Know how amateur-built registration works between countries (ie, Canada->US A)? > On Apr 16, 2018, at 11:13, kearney wrote: > > > Hi > > In a week I go to build the engine for my project -10. Avionics have been ordered. This means my flying -10 needs a new home (preferably after KOSH but sooner if need be). > > To that end C-GCWZ is on the market. > > Basic specs are: > > - IFR CofA > - BPE Engine with cold air induction and 8.5:1 pistons. Dyno'd at 28 7 HP > - Showplanes cowl > - MT three blade prop > - Dual AFS 4500 with dual ADHRS > - SL30 > - Garmin 430WAAS > - GTX 327 > - PMA8000X > - 2 axis TruTrak autopilot > - Mountain High 4 place built in oxygen > - AMSafe TSO'd Inertial real seat belts > - Leather interior > > If you know anyone who might be interested, please pass my contact info o n. > > Cheers > > Les > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479369#479369 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RV10 for Sale
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Apr 16, 2018
Hi I found this link (see section 16) that details what is required. In short it looks like only a FAA import inspection is required. Cheers Les https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-27G.pdf Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479372#479372 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Leffler <bob(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: RV10 for Sale
Date: Apr 16, 2018
They also need to follow the standard process for experimentals just like e veryone else has done to get its airworthiness cert. it should be pretty straight forward as long as there is enough proof of 51% amateur built. Get Outlook for iOS ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-rv10-list-server@matronic s.com> on behalf of kearney Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 2:50:49 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: RV10 for Sale Hi I found this link (see section 16) that details what is required. In short it looks like only a FAA import inspection is required. Cheers Les https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-27G.pdf Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479372#479372 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RV10 for Sale
From: "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Apr 17, 2018
I forwarded this to Gary R who expressed interest -------- Bill WA0SYV Aviation Partners, LLC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479403#479403 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Apr 17, 2018
Subject: Re: RV10 for Sale
Hi Bill Many thanks. Cheers Les Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 17, 2018, at 2:02 PM, bill.peyton wrote: > > > I forwarded this to Gary R who expressed interest > > -------- > Bill > WA0SYV > Aviation Partners, LLC > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479403#479403 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Apr 27, 2018
Hi After a lot of thought I decided to order a *new* engine built from a Lycoming IO-540 kit by Aerosport Power located in Kamloops British Columbia Canada. As a Lycoming distributor they still have access to these kits. I originally planned to get another engine from Barret Precision Engines (Tulsa Ok) which is where I got my first engine. They are great people BTW. I went with Aerosport as the thought of a *new* engine was just too attractive. An option that Aerosport provides is a "builder school" . Here you work one on one with one of their techs and assemble an engine from a large pile o' parts. When I inquired about the school they said you can do as much (or little) as you wanted. I went to "school" on Monday am and was able to assemble 95% of the engine with the expert guidance of one of their techs (Simon). The crank was bolted to an engine stand and the con rods were installed. By lunch we had installed the bearings, crank & cam in the case, installed lifters, nose seal and mated the case. I was amazed at how tight the case through bolts were (necessary to prevent fretting). I large hammer (maul?) was used to drive them into place. The assembled case was reattached to the engine stand. Then, after lunch the jugs were installed. This was a complete non event. Lots of LubriPlate and the correct tool to compress the rings and they simply slid into place. Push rod tubes were installed along with the accessory case and cold air induction air box. The next day he engine was completed. This included the push rods / rockers / injectors / fuel block / induction tubes etc. Day three involved installing the engine on a test stand. This was fairly complex as I am using the SDS EFI/EI. There was a ton of wiring to install but it all went quite smoothly. At the end of the day the first two engine ruins were performed. The engine started quickly. I expected a cloud of black smoke based on all the assembly lubricant used but I only got a small initial puff of white smoke. The engine started in 2 or three seconds was smooth and strong. On the morning of day 4 the final two engine runs were performed. After that the engine was removed from the test truck and prepped for palletization. This included installing by accessories (Denso alternator / 90 degree oil adapter / backup alternator etc). The engine was put on a pallet and then crated. Today I drove home with the engine. There were a few gotchas that Aerosport handled with ease. 1. I was using Barret's Cold Air Induction system on the engine (Barret was quite happy to sell it to me without an attached engine!). At the end of day 1, when torqueing one of the studs, it started to pull out. I spoke to another of the techs (Rob) who said no problem. I pulled the box and he installed a helicoil and that was that. 2. The Barret CAI system was new to Aerosport. They didn't realize that the induction tubes needed welding to the flange adapters. No problem - they had a local welder come in the next day and he did a very nice job. 3. The CAI system required induction tube flanges with deeper recesses than the flanges that came with the engine kit. Darryl found the required flanges and had them painted in very short order. What I really liked is that everyone involved in my engine (even peripherally) were very approachable. For example, the chap (Stephen) who painted my engine and flywheel asked if I really wanted to leave my CAI system in green (I said I did). He then pointed out that the green was zinc chromium and was not really *paint*. Based on his recommendation I asked him to paint it I was in Ferrari red by the next day. He could have easily just shrugged and walked away but he made sure I knew the implications of what I asked for. I really appreciated that. I more or less had the run of the shop and was free to chat with everyone there. At no time did I feel limited. All my questions were answered and at no time did I feel rushed. As I was hands on all through the process I really learned a lot about the engine and how it operates. Based on the course, I would have no problem swapping a jug (provided I had the right tools). I would also like to give a shout out to B&C. I had purchased a standby alternator that I planned to install at Aerosport. During the install it became apparent something was amiss. I spoke to TJ at B&C who con firmed there was a problem with the alternator supplied. Less than 24 hours later FedEx had delivered a replacement. Things can and will go sideways at times. A measure of a company is how they deal with these situations. B&C could not have been better. Another shout out should go to Ross and Barry at SDSEFI. Their Electronic Fuel Injection and Electronic Ignition system is a work of art and performed flawlessly. I look forward to flying behind it. To close on the school, the only things I did not do was install the nose seal, silk thread the case halves and adjust the push rod lengths. Each of these operations I wanted to be done by the most expert of hands. I did pretty much everything else. During this, Simon was great at gently pointing out my mistakes so I could correct them. In short, the build school was well worth the price of admission. The Aerosport people were all very pleasant, approachable and knowledgeable. Pix of my Aerosport go fast engine is attached! Cheers Les C-GROK (Some assembly required) C-GCWZ (Flying and for sale) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479619#479619 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/engine_186.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
From: "tomhanaway" <tomhanaway1(at)gmail.com>
Date: Apr 28, 2018
Neat experience. I have an io-375 from Aerosport. Found them great to deal with. One thing to check based on the picture. I believe Lycoming has a SB out stating that the fuel lines to the injectors should be supported with Adel clamps. Regards, Tom Hanaway Rv-10 built and sold Rv-8a flying -------- RV-10. Built and sold RV-8a. Building Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479624#479624 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 28, 2018
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
Well done Les.=C2- Thanks for the info.=C2- I also have noted that the Aerosprt Power people have always been super.... questions, problems etc. =C2- So les, exactly how much HP does this beast produce?=C2- What mods did they make to get it to produce that HP.Thanks again for the write up.D on McDonald1,000 hours and counting.Still as fun as it was on the first fli ght. ote: Hi=C2- After a lot of thought I decided to order a *new* engine built from a Lycom ing IO-540 kit by Aerosport Power located in Kamloops British Columbia Cana da. As a Lycoming distributor they still have access to these kits. I originally planned to get another engine from Barret Precision Engines (T ulsa Ok) which is where I got my first engine. They are great people BTW. I went with Aerosport as the thought of a *new* engine was just too attract ive. An option that Aerosport provides is a "builder school" . Here you work one on one with one of their techs and assemble an engine from a large pile o' parts. When I inquired about the school they said you can do as much (or l ittle) as you wanted. I went to "school" on Monday am and was able to assemble 95% of the engine with the expert guidance of one of their techs (Simon). The crank was bolte d to an engine stand and the con rods were installed. By lunch we had insta lled the bearings, crank & cam in the case, installed lifters, nose seal an d mated the case. I was amazed at how tight the case through bolts were (ne cessary to prevent fretting). I large hammer (maul?) was used to drive them into place.=C2- The assembled case was reattached to the engine stand. Then, after lunch th e jugs were installed. This was a complete non event. Lots of LubriPlate an d the correct tool to compress the rings and they simply slid into place. Push rod tubes were installed along with the accessory case and cold air in duction air=C2- box. The next day he engine was completed. This included the push rods / rockers / injectors / fuel block / induction tubes etc. Day three involved installing the engine on a test stand. This was fairly c omplex as I am using the SDS EFI/EI. There was a ton of wiring to install b ut it all went quite smoothly. At the end of the day the first two engine r uins were performed. The engine started quickly. I expected a cloud of blac k smoke based on all the assembly lubricant used but I only got a small ini tial puff of white smoke.=C2- The engine started in 2 or three seconds wa s smooth and strong. On the morning of day 4 the final two engine runs were performed. After tha t the engine was removed from the test truck and prepped for palletization. This included installing by accessories (Denso alternator / 90 degree oil adapter / backup alternator etc). The engine was put on a pallet and then crated. Today I drove home with the engine. There were a few gotchas that Aerosport handled with ease. 1. I was using Barret's Cold Air Induction system on the engine (Barret was quite happy to sell it to me without an attached engine!).=C2- At the en d of day 1, when torqueing one of the studs, it started to pull out. I spok e to another of the techs (Rob) who said no problem. I pulled the box and h e installed a helicoil and that was that. 2. The Barret CAI system was new to Aerosport. They didn't realize that the induction tubes needed welding to the flange adapters. No problem - they h ad a local welder come in the next day and he did a very nice job. 3. The CAI system required induction tube flanges with deeper recesses than the flanges that came with the engine kit. Darryl found the required flang es and had them painted in very short order. What I really liked is that everyone involved in my engine (even peripheral ly) were very approachable. For example, the chap (Stephen) who painted my engine and flywheel asked if I really wanted to leave my CAI system in gree n (I said I did). He then pointed out that the green was zinc chromium and was not really *paint*. Based on his recommendation I asked him to paint it =C3=A2=82=AC=9C I was in Ferrari red by the next day. He could ha ve easily just shrugged and walked away but he made sure I knew the implica tions of what I asked for. I really appreciated that. I=C2- more or less had the run of the shop and was free to chat with ever yone there. At no time did I feel limited. All my questions were answered a nd at no time did I feel rushed.=C2- As I was hands on all through the pr ocess I really learned a lot about the engine and how it operates. Based on the course, I would have no problem swapping a jug (provided I had the rig ht tools). I would also like to give a shout out to B&C. I had purchased a standby alt ernator that I planned to install at Aerosport.=C2- During the install it became apparent something was amiss. I spoke to TJ at B&C who con firmed t here was a problem with the alternator supplied. Less than 24 hours later F edEx had delivered a replacement. Things can and will go sideways at times. A measure of a company is how they deal with these situations. B&C could n ot have been better. Another shout out should go to Ross and Barry at SDSEFI. Their Electronic F uel Injection and Electronic Ignition system is a work of art and performed flawlessly.=C2- I look forward to flying behind it. To close on the school, the only things I did not do was install the nose s eal, silk thread the case halves and adjust the push rod lengths. Each of t hese operations I wanted to be done by the most expert of hands. I did pret ty much everything else. During this, Simon was great at gently pointing ou t my mistakes so I could correct them. In short, the build school was well worth the price of admission. The Aeros port people were all very pleasant, approachable and knowledgeable. Pix of my Aerosport go fast engine is attached! Cheers Les C-GROK (Some assembly required) C-GCWZ (Flying and for sale) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479619#479619 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/engine_186.jpg S - WIKI - - =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Apr 28, 2018
Tim I agree on the injector lines. All of that will happen when the engine is installed. I want to change a couple of the lengths so things are a bit neater. Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479627#479627 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Apr 28, 2018
Don My flying -10 has the same engine (9:1 pistons & cold air induction). It dyn o'd out at 287 HP. Ross's customers report an 10-12 HP boost with EFI/EI. That brings me up to about 300 HP. That is what is on the data plate. Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479628#479628 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Apr 28, 2018
Just curious if folks with higher than stock 8.5:1 compression have a plan IF 100LL goes away and its replacement doesn't prove to have as much octane. We know the stock compression will run on 91 octane mogas or 94UL gas. Don't know what octane 9:1 takes. I tend to doubt that EI or EFI add significant amount to full power. Their main benefit is what they do to improve power in cruise and high altitude conditions. Your take off power timing (and power output) will be exactly the same as it is with a dinosaur magneto... at 25 degrees BTDC. There maybe a hair bit better mixture distribution/control with EFI, but continuous flow manifold fuel injection has proven very good as long as intake runners are of equal length, which is mostly true for Lycoming designs. Remember that stock power ratings have a tolerance of plus or minus 5%. Les's flying engine is a plus 10%, which is mostly explained by compression and cold air induction. I assume those with higher power engines are still using the Vans specified Vne of 200kts TAS (or 230 mph TAS). So far, have not needed to use the JATO bottles I installed for looks and pilot miscalculations. ;-)) On 4/28/2018 5:58 AM, kearney wrote: > > Don > > My flying -10 has the same engine (9:1 pistons & cold air induction). It dyn o'd out at 287 HP. Ross's customers report an 10-12 HP boost with EFI/EI. That brings me up to about 300 HP. > > That is what is on the data plate. > > Cheers > > Les > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479628#479628 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Apr 28, 2018
Subject: Re: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
Just to be clear, not only is there a Lycoming Service Bulletin on fuel injection lines and clamps, there are a number of ADs, most recent is AD 2015-19-07. Clearly something to pay attention to, regardless of where you sit on the E-amateur built vs AD compliance debate. The service bulletin shows you exactly where Lycoming thinks the clamps should be. Sent from my IBM-360 main frame On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 5:51 AM, kearney wrote: > > Tim > > I agree on the injector lines. All of that will happen when the engine is > installed. I want to change a couple of the lengths so things are a bit > neater. > > Cheers > > Les > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479627#479627 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Apr 28, 2018
Subject: Re: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
My understanding is that 9:1 is probably good. Any more than that might have some issues. We will wait and see. I went 9:1 thinking that I was fine for the short term and that, by the time a replacement fuel became widely available, Id be close to ready for a top overhaul anyway. And at that point I could go back to 8.5s if it looked like that would be necessary. At the rate Im flying this thing, that might come soon. Im stacking the hours on her. Its too much fun and too useful. But even 120 hrs in 10 months isnt nearly enough time in at the controls. I still need more. - is that addiction? Phil Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 28, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > Just curious if folks with higher than stock 8.5:1 compression have a plan IF 100LL goes away and its replacement doesn't prove to have as much octane. We know the stock compression will run on 91 octane mogas or 94UL gas. Don't know what octane 9:1 takes. > I tend to doubt that EI or EFI add significant amount to full power. Their main benefit is what they do to improve power in cruise and high altitude conditions. Your take off power timing (and power output) will be exactly the same as it is with a dinosaur magneto... at 25 degrees BTDC. There maybe a hair bit better mixture distribution/control with EFI, but continuous flow manifold fuel injection has proven very good as long as intake runners are of equal length, which is mostly true for Lycoming designs. Remember that stock power ratings have a tolerance of plus or minus 5%. Les's flying engine is a plus 10%, which is mostly explained by compression and cold air induction. > I assume those with higher power engines are still using the Vans specified Vne of 200kts TAS (or 230 mph TAS). So far, have not needed to use the JATO bottles I installed for looks and pilot miscalculations. ;-)) > >> On 4/28/2018 5:58 AM, kearney wrote: >> Don >> My flying -10 has the same engine (9:1 pistons & cold air induction). It dyn o'd out at 287 HP. Ross's customers report an 10-12 HP boost with EFI/EI. That brings me up to about 300 HP. >> That is what is on the data plate. >> Cheers >> Les >> Read this topic online here: >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479628#479628 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: Apr 28, 2018
Subject: Re: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
You may be right about time before something has to be done. The angle valve cylinders on the 4 cyl 200 hp engines and 6 cyl 300 hp engines with 8.7:1 compression all require 100LL, and on the 4 cyl they also retarded the timing to 20 degrees. So I am dubious that you can run 9:1 on anything less than 100LL. Hopefully all 3 fuels being considered will make the grade and make it in the market to hopefully control pricing. Sent from my IBM-360 main frame On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Phillip Perry wrote : > > My understanding is that 9:1 is probably good. Any more than that might > have some issues. We will wait and see. > > I went 9:1 thinking that I was fine for the short term and that, by the > time a replacement fuel became widely available, I=99d be close to ready for > a top overhaul anyway. And at that point I could go back to 8.5 =99s if it > looked like that would be necessary. > > At the rate I=99m flying this thing, that might come soon. I =99m stacking > the hours on her. It=99s too much fun and too useful. But even 120 hrs in > 10 months isn=99t nearly enough time in at the controls. I still need more. > > - is that addiction? > > Phil > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 28, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote : > > > > > > Just curious if folks with higher than stock 8.5:1 compression have a > plan IF 100LL goes away and its replacement doesn't prove to have as much > octane. We know the stock compression will run on 91 octane mogas or 94UL > gas. Don't know what octane 9:1 takes. > > I tend to doubt that EI or EFI add significant amount to full power. > Their main benefit is what they do to improve power in cruise and high > altitude conditions. Your take off power timing (and power output) will b e > exactly the same as it is with a dinosaur magneto... at 25 degrees BTDC. > There maybe a hair bit better mixture distribution/control with EFI, but > continuous flow manifold fuel injection has proven very good as long as > intake runners are of equal length, which is mostly true for Lycoming > designs. Remember that stock power ratings have a tolerance of plus or > minus 5%. Les's flying engine is a plus 10%, which is mostly explained by > compression and cold air induction. > > I assume those with higher power engines are still using the Vans > specified Vne of 200kts TAS (or 230 mph TAS). So far, have not needed to > use the JATO bottles I installed for looks and pilot miscalculations. ;-) ) > > > >> On 4/28/2018 5:58 AM, kearney wrote: > >> Don > >> My flying -10 has the same engine (9:1 pistons & cold air induction). > It dyn o'd out at 287 HP. Ross's customers report an 10-12 HP boost with > EFI/EI. That brings me up to about 300 HP. > >> That is what is on the data plate. > >> Cheers > >> Les > >> Read this topic online here: > >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479628#479628 > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Apr 29, 2018
Subject: Re: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
What fuel flows are you typically getting Les, and do you run Lean of Peak? Warm regards Patrick > On 28 Apr 2018, at 22:28, kearney wrote: > > > Don > > My flying -10 has the same engine (9:1 pistons & cold air induction). It dyn o'd out at 287 HP. Ross's customers report an 10-12 HP boost with EFI/EI. That brings me up to about 300 HP. > > That is what is on the data plate. > > Cheers > > Les > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479628#479628 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: Apr 28, 2018
Hi Patrick I don't run LOP as my injectors are not balanced for that. My fuel flow is about 12GPH or a little less. Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479671#479671 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 29, 2018
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
Get em balanced Les.... pretty easy.... after 1,000 at 2gph, that's an ext ra 2,000 gallons at $4, gee, that's $8,000.=C2- To say nothing of your en gine actually burning ALL the fuel, thus creating less carbon buildup on va lves, pistons, and rings, plus the oil stays cleaner.=C2- Maybe even more important is keeping each cylinder further away from running at the highes t ICP (internal combustion pressure).Don wrote: Hi Patrick I don't run LOP as my injectors are not balanced for that. My fuel flow is about 12GPH or a little less. Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479671#479671 S - WIKI - - =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Patrick Pulis <rv10free2fly(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Apr 29, 2018
Subject: Re: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
Many thanks Les I dont normally run LOP either. Fuel is cheaper than metal! Warm regards Patrick > On 29 Apr 2018, at 11:48, kearney wrote: > > > Hi Patrick > > I don't run LOP as my injectors are not balanced for that. My fuel flow is about 12GPH or a little less. > > Cheers > > Les > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479671#479671 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: Apr 29, 2018
Subject: Re: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
I run LOP because air is cheaper than fuel. I have seen many engines that were balanced well enough with stock injectors to run comfortably lean of peak. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad > On Apr 29, 2018, at 7:32 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: > > > Many thanks Les > > I dont normally run LOP either. Fuel is cheaper than metal! > > Warm regards > > Patrick > >> On 29 Apr 2018, at 11:48, kearney wrote: >> >> >> Hi Patrick >> >> I don't run LOP as my injectors are not balanced for that. My fuel flow is about 12GPH or a little less. >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479671#479671 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Date: Apr 29, 2018
Very nice story Les, now the question, what price came the engine with all that nice stuff and what price wa the course? Cheers Werner On 28.04.2018 04:23, kearney wrote: > > Hi > > After a lot of thought I decided to order a *new* engine built from a Lycoming IO-540 kit by Aerosport Power located in Kamloops British Columbia Canada. As a Lycoming distributor they still have access to these kits. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Apr 29, 2018
Ditto. If injectors aren't balanced well enough to run LOP, it isn't doing the engine any favors running it ROP to cover up the problem. While fuel savings is nice, consider the other benefits: CHT will be lower, peak cylinder pressures will be lower, which means blow-by and oil consumption will be less, carbon and other buildup in engine will be less, oil stays cleaner, plugs stay cleaner. All of that means less maintenance required. Not to mention you get more range without having to add tankage. My trip to OSH last summer averaged 11.3 gph for entire trip, including take-off, climb, etc. and a couple hours of low level flying trying to get into OSH under ceilings that were around 500 AGL in most of southern Wisconsin. Most of flight was at 10-11,500 at 60-65% power. I typically run 10-30 degrees LOP at 65% or less. I have stock injection with a pair of Bendix S-1200 magnetos. Probably could go leaner if I got electronic ignition to replace one of the mags. I haven't pursued trying to get my injectors better balanced. Kelly On 4/29/2018 4:55 AM, Jesse Saint wrote: > > I run LOP because air is cheaper than fuel. I have seen many engines that were balanced well enough with stock injectors to run comfortably lean of peak. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > 352-427-0285 > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Apr 29, 2018, at 7:32 AM, Patrick Pulis wrote: >> >> >> Many thanks Les >> >> I dont normally run LOP either. Fuel is cheaper than metal! >> >> Warm regards >> >> Patrick ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: May 02, 2018
Subject: Private Pilot Training
Ive searched the archives but came up short although I suspect there are a range of opinions so would like to ask the question about using my RV-10 to teach my wife to fly. First I recognize the marital dynamics that can be an issue and thankfully we are in a place where that, for now, is just not an issue. So my main concern is using the -10 for initial training. My plan was to get access to a 172 for the training but that is proving more difficult than expected. Then I thought about building another RV-7(A) for the mission and have some potential partners to ease the financial burden. I saw an ad for a nice project with a 200hp IO-360 and C/S prop which is more than desired but a very good deal. Then it occurred to me, what is really the difference between that and my -10 from a training perspective? In fact, the -10 is less responsive so that might be a benefit. It would definitely take her more time to be ready to solo and prepared for her checkride, but given that any other thoughts on not using the RV-10 for initial training? There do appear to be some insurance issues which I am starting to look into. Thanks for any and all thoughts, Marcus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Maib <dmaib(at)mac.com>
Date: May 02, 2018
Subject: Re: Private Pilot Training
I was going to do the same thing a few years ago. My insurance company said the problem would be student pilot solo flight. Insurance was going to be very, very expensive and would likely come with high deductibles. I dont remember what the costs were going to be, but it was enough to make me back off at the time. However, Tim Olson recently got his daughter her PPL in their new RV-14, so he would have the most recent experience with the insurance issue. David Maib > On May 2, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > > > Ive searched the archives but came up short although I suspect there are a range of opinions so would like to ask the question about using my RV-10 to teach my wife to fly. First I recognize the marital dynamics that can be an issue and thankfully we are in a place where that, for now, is just not an issue. > So my main concern is using the -10 for initial training. My plan was to get access to a 172 for the training but that is proving more difficult than expected. Then I thought about building another RV-7(A) for the mission and have some potential partners to ease the financial burden. I saw an ad for a nice project with a 200hp IO-360 and C/S prop which is more than desired but a very good deal. Then it occurred to me, what is really the difference between that and my -10 from a training perspective? In fact, the -10 is less responsive so that might be a benefit. It would definitely take her more time to be ready to solo and prepared for her checkride, but given that any other thoughts on not using the RV-10 for initial training? There do appear to be some insurance issues which I am starting to look into. > > Thanks for any and all thoughts, > Marcus > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Private Pilot Training
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: May 02, 2018
Hi Marcus, *warning, very long (and boring if the topic doesn't excite you* As you may already know, I have a perspective on that now after almost being done going thru the same things. I had the RV-10 and wanted to teach my Daughter to fly. In exploring other airplanes to have her learn in, I considered building first an RV-12, but that would make me end up with an airplane that absolutely was NOT what I wanted as a second plane, as I wanted 2 that could easily cruise together at similar speeds. Then I considered a 7A, but I'm SO glad that I didn't go that route. The 7A is FAR less comfortable than other options, and it's going to be much more of a handful to learn in than your -10. Also, the gear and the nose gear in particular is NOWHERE near as strong as what you'd find on the -10 or especially the lighter -14. I was very lucky that Van's came along with the -14 when they did. It really is probably the perfect *performance* trainer out there, as the main gear is SUPER heavy duty, and so is the nose gear. The -12 is probably the best general trainer Van's would have. The next issue I had was that if a CFI were to teach her in either the -14 or the -10, they would need 25 hours in type to be listed as a named pilot. That costs more money that would be a waste. So...I wasn't a CFI at the time but thanks to some encouragement on this very list (Thanks Bob!), I decided to get my CFI. Now I was all set from an airplane and CFI perspective. Like you, normally I would say it would be hard to teach family, and especially a spouse, but it actually worked out real smoothly for the most part with my Daughter. When we first started, before I was a CFI, I started teaching her the basics of landings in the RV-10. No, I wasn't insured for her to be flying it at that time, but I wanted to give her the basics of landings and then take her to another instructor to get her the real deal. She did do 4 hours in a C-150, with another instructor, which was probably valuable in itself. It may be nice to do something similar as it gives her the confidence that someone else is going to teach her the same things. But, I wouldn't say it's a necessary step. Then at this point I still wasn't a CFI, but we kept building the -14 and flying the -10. I ended up giving her about 25 additional hours of non-loggable instruction in the RV-10 before I was a CFI, and she was flying fine, to the point that I was not having to do anything with landings or anything else. I will say that you are probably very correct that it will take a little longer to both solo and complete the training in the RV-10, and it is a bit like drinking from a fire hose when you are doing pattern work. Whereas the 172 is very slow and everything takes it's time to happen, the RV-10 as you know, is not. What happened to us is that she'd hit the throttle and we'd be off the ground, and before her brain could wrap around what was all happening, we were passing thru 500' and turning left for the pattern. Often times she wasn't mentally ready to even turn until 750-1000' because it happened so fast, and then by the time the short crosswind leg was over, we'd hit downwind and could be a few hundred feet higher than wanted. It just really took time for her to mentally keep up with all the nuances of what you have to do, when the plane could do them faster than she could think. It's this in particular that I think makes maybe 5 hours of 172 time a good idea, before flying the RV-10. At least they can slowly get the processes figured out. On the other hand though, if you drink from a fire hose without getting your lips torn off, you can still get hydrated and she did absorb the material...just took a little longer to get comfortable with it. And, I think once she learned all the skills, the RV-10 is really the better plane to fly, even for training. One of the primary reasons for his is the discussion my wife and I had. We both didn't really want her flying some 1950-something old plane, with it's old airframe, old instruments, and old everything, that wouldn't be as reliable as something new. There's no reason NOT to have a nice engine monitor to give you good information. There's no reason not to have a great radio. And, here's a big one...there's a LOT of added safety when your climb rate is 1500-2200fpm, to get you away from the ground a.s.a.p. where you DO have a chance for a glide back to the airport if something goes wrong. That and the fact that go-arounds in the RV-10 are a non-issue from a power perspective. Also, I know from experience that crosswind components of maybe 25kts aren't impossible in the RV-10, and it does crosswinds better than the 172 for the most part. So ultimately, while I would recommend every private pilot be burdened with the fast pace of the RV-10, I do KNOW now that it's actually something that is doable. I would not really think it necessary to build an RV-14, but I think if you really WANT to build another RV, definitely choose the -14, as it will be far more durable and comfortable. But, unless you want the resulting airplane permanently, it's probably a waste of money. My daughter now has over 100 logged hours, split between the RV-10 and RV-14, and probably 30-35 non-logged hours, and she flies darn near as well as most of the RV people I know. Her checkride is coming up soon when she turns 17, and other than some brush-up on some maneuvers I absolutely know she's ready. A couple nights ago I took her out because it was a windy day and all of us in the family are doing lots of crosswind landings in prep for a trip to the islands where there aren't multiple runways. On the way to the airport I called the AWOS phone number and it reported winds as 190@23G32, and we have runways 18/36 and 9/27. I cringed and gave up on crosswinds and figured she'd have her hands full doing straight in's. (Which was true, with all the turbulence) As we flew though I told her: "Plan to FLY DOWN THE RUNWAY ONLY, at 2-3', on Runway 27, and just hold it off but keep your crosswind corrections in. If and only if, you can get everything just perfect, you can land it." It blew me away because she flew just fine and did a couple great landings. I checked the AWOS after touchdown and it was reporting 180@19G28. I don't think we must have hit the 28kt gusts. :) At any rate, she did beautifully, and so did the plane. So, I'm here to tell you that it is absolutely possible and fun to learn in the -10. Now for the insurance part. When it comes to insurance, one of the reasons I build the RV-14 was because I assumed that I would be unable to get insurance for the -10 for her as a student. In the end, it was a waste of money building the RV-14 (but a waste I'm glad I did), because I was able to insure her right away. I put her on the RV-14 first and I think it jacked me almost $1200. Then I went to put her on the last 6 months of the year on the RV-10 and they added her there for $250 (covering 6 months). That was thru Hallmark, quoted through AJG (NationAir). I did get a little shocker at renewal time as my normally $1700 premium is now $2925, but she's a named insured, and still a student, and that's an annual fee. So, while you would think building an RV or buying an RV would be a cost saver due to insurance, I think that you just have to get over the fact that insurance may be available but just at a lot higher cost. Still cheaper than buying and insuring a second plane. There was only one underwriter willing to cover us, so your options may be limited, but you can always explore the costs. If insurance is impossible to obtain, I guess I'd say that I'd still stay away from the RV-7A idea and find other options. There is a place here in my state where you can even lease an airplane for a length of time. About 8-10 years ago I think, I leased a cherokee 140 for 32/hr dry with the only stipulations being 1) need to hangar the plane and 2) need to pay for a minimum of 10 hours per month. But, learning in that plane was not as fun as the RV. So, explore the real insurance cost and see what you find. Talk to Jenny at AJG and see what she says. If you can get the insurance at any price, I'd say go for it in the -10. And, if you build a plane, go for the -14. It at least builds fairly fast, and is comfortable. Tim On 05/02/2018 07:27 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > > Ive searched the archives but came up short although I suspect there are a range of opinions so would like to ask the question about using my RV-10 to teach my wife to fly. First I recognize the marital dynamics that can be an issue and thankfully we are in a place where that, for now, is just not an issue. > So my main concern is using the -10 for initial training. My plan was to get access to a 172 for the training but that is proving more difficult than expected. Then I thought about building another RV-7(A) for the mission and have some potential partners to ease the financial burden. I saw an ad for a nice project with a 200hp IO-360 and C/S prop which is more than desired but a very good deal. Then it occurred to me, what is really the difference between that and my -10 from a training perspective? In fact, the -10 is less responsive so that might be a benefit. It would definitely take her more time to be ready to solo and prepared for her checkride, but given that any other thoughts on not using the RV-10 for initial training? There do appear to be some insurance issues which I am starting to look into. > > Thanks for any and all thoughts, > Marcus > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 02, 2018
Subject: Re: Private Pilot Training
I would think from an insurance perspective, getting training in either a Cherokee or C172 would be easiest. Or even purchasing a C150/152 or PA-28-140 with the intent to resell as soon as training is done would be easier. The adding of HP rating shouldn't be but a few hours in C182. As much as one would like to learn in what will ultimately fly, the solo parts are tough. Anotherf minor complication, depending on how aircraft is registered, AFAIK for an instructor to teach for hire in an experimental (for other than transition waiver) the student must have an ownership interest in the aircraft. A flying club may be the least expensive way to go for the license. But my guesses aren't from recent experience, being grandfathered for complex, HP, and tailwheel. Kelly Sent from my IBM-360 main frame On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:49 AM, David Maib wrote: > > I was going to do the same thing a few years ago. My insurance company > said the problem would be student pilot solo flight. Insurance was going to > be very, very expensive and would likely come with high deductibles. I > don=99t remember what the costs were going to be, but it was enough to make > me back off at the time. However, Tim Olson recently got his daughter her > PPL in their new RV-14, so he would have the most recent experience with > the insurance issue. > > David Maib > > > > On May 2, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > > > > > > I=99ve searched the archives but came up short although I suspect there > are a range of opinions so would like to ask the question about using my > RV-10 to teach my wife to fly. First I recognize the marital dynamics tha t > can be an issue and thankfully we are in a place where that, for now, is > just not an issue. > > So my main concern is using the -10 for initial training. My plan was t o > get access to a 172 for the training but that is proving more difficult > than expected. Then I thought about building another RV-7(A) for the > mission and have some potential partners to ease the financial burden. I > saw an ad for a nice project with a 200hp IO-360 and C/S prop which is mo re > than desired but a very good deal. Then it occurred to me, what is really > the difference between that and my -10 from a training perspective? In > fact, the -10 is less responsive so that might be a benefit. It would > definitely take her more time to be ready to solo and prepared for her > checkride, but given that any other thoughts on not using the RV-10 for > initial training? There do appear to be some insurance issues which I am > starting to look into. > > > > Thanks for any and all thoughts, > > Marcus > > > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Private Pilot Training
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: May 02, 2018
Hi David, I just hit send on a long, long email, that you can read, but here's a quick comment. 1) She hasn't finished the PPL yet, but, she will soon! :) 2) The insurance gets more expensive but I wouldn't call it extreme. That may be due to covering 2 planes with the same company. Each plane in itself is what I'd say is reasonable considering the situation...and she's insured on both planes. 3) There was no additional deductible. It was basically my same policy(s), with her as named insured, and then send a check. The additional fee for both planes was probably around $2500 total, or maybe $3000. Insuring up for the LODA for transition training is about the same, actually. So it wasn't too bad. Regarding transition training, I've basically decided to just give up the idea as some others did. I may still get a LODA for the -10 like I did the -14, but I will probably never use it. For all of 2017/2018's insurance period on the RV-14, there is only one taker, and their insurance requirement is only 1 hour. They want to fly for maybe 2 hours. With only 2 hours that I'd bill, I'd lose so much money on offering the training with insurance that I'm not willing to do it anymore. That and the fact that even the nice people like to try to create scheduling headaches for you and don't want to show up with a current BFR or want you to come to them instead...and I'm not really interested in offering transition training to someone who's not willing to come to me as a CURRENT and non-rusty pilot. Too much risk to the airplane. I'm shocked that pilots will skip flying for years, then think they want 1-2 hours in an RV before they do a first flight in theirs. I'm not willing to use MY plane for that, and not particularly interested in jumping in some other plane with that pilot either. I now see why so many people offer it at first but then decide not to do it anymore. Tim On 05/02/2018 08:49 AM, David Maib wrote: > > I was going to do the same thing a few years ago. My insurance company said the problem would be student pilot solo flight. Insurance was going to be very, very expensive and would likely come with high deductibles. I dont remember what the costs were going to be, but it was enough to make me back off at the time. However, Tim Olson recently got his daughter her PPL in their new RV-14, so he would have the most recent experience with the insurance issue. > > David Maib > > >> On May 2, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: >> >> >> Ive searched the archives but came up short although I suspect there are a range of opinions so would like to ask the question about using my RV-10 to teach my wife to fly. First I recognize the marital dynamics that can be an issue and thankfully we are in a place where that, for now, is just not an issue. >> So my main concern is using the -10 for initial training. My plan was to get access to a 172 for the training but that is proving more difficult than expected. Then I thought about building another RV-7(A) for the mission and have some potential partners to ease the financial burden. I saw an ad for a nice project with a 200hp IO-360 and C/S prop which is more than desired but a very good deal. Then it occurred to me, what is really the difference between that and my -10 from a training perspective? In fact, the -10 is less responsive so that might be a benefit. It would definitely take her more time to be ready to solo and prepared for her checkride, but given that any other thoughts on not using the RV-10 for initial training? There do appear to be some insurance issues which I am starting to look into. >> >> Thanks for any and all thoughts, >> Marcus >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Private Pilot Training
Date: May 02, 2018
Tim, Thanks so much for your response, to be honest I was hoping you would weigh in as I knew you had a similar situation. You touched on all of my concerns and impressions and while I had anticipated a different response you make some excellent points that I have been realizing myself. The cost of even partnering in a 172 will be the initial buy-in, probably $9,000 on the only options Ive found so far, plus another $1500/year overhead. Not bad, but that would buy a lot of insurance and fuel for the RV-10. I also honed in on your point about it being a better, and safer airplane once the results of the fire-house have dissipated. Great quote I will use by the way, in the multitude of training programs I have done Im well versed in the fire house effect but had not yet heard it put so well as, if you drink from a fire hose without getting your lips torn off, you can still get hydrated ;) I will check out the insurance options, and thanks Jenny for chiming in. My plan for now will be to go do some flying and see if I can dumb down the G3X a bit to make it more simple to interpret and let her have a go at the learning curve to see how she does. Id hate to be overly pessimistic and go down a far more expense path for nothing. Thanks to all for the thoughts, this group has been a great lifeline for the 12 years we had the -10. Just another reason I love this airplane so much. Marcus On May 2, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Tim Olson wrote: Hi Marcus, *warning, very long (and boring if the topic doesn't excite you* As you may already know, I have a perspective on that now after almost being done going thru the same things. I had the RV-10 and wanted to teach my Daughter to fly. In exploring other airplanes to have her learn in, I considered building first an RV-12, but that would make me end up with an airplane that absolutely was NOT what I wanted as a second plane, as I wanted 2 that could easily cruise together at similar speeds. Then I considered a 7A, but I'm SO glad that I didn't go that route. The 7A is FAR less comfortable than other options, and it's going to be much more of a handful to learn in than your -10. Also, the gear and the nose gear in particular is NOWHERE near as strong as what you'd find on the -10 or especially the lighter -14. I was very lucky that Van's came along with the -14 when they did. It really is probably the perfect *performance* trainer out there, as the main gear is SUPER heavy duty, and so is the nose gear. The -12 is probably the best general trainer Van's would have. The next issue I had was that if a CFI were to teach her in either the -14 or the -10, they would need 25 hours in type to be listed as a named pilot. That costs more money that would be a waste. So...I wasn't a CFI at the time but thanks to some encouragement on this very list (Thanks Bob!), I decided to get my CFI. Now I was all set from an airplane and CFI perspective. Like you, normally I would say it would be hard to teach family, and especially a spouse, but it actually worked out real smoothly for the most part with my Daughter. When we first started, before I was a CFI, I started teaching her the basics of landings in the RV-10. No, I wasn't insured for her to be flying it at that time, but I wanted to give her the basics of landings and then take her to another instructor to get her the real deal. She did do 4 hours in a C-150, with another instructor, which was probably valuable in itself. It may be nice to do something similar as it gives her the confidence that someone else is going to teach her the same things. But, I wouldn't say it's a necessary step. Then at this point I still wasn't a CFI, but we kept building the -14 and flying the -10. I ended up giving her about 25 additional hours of non-loggable instruction in the RV-10 before I was a CFI, and she was flying fine, to the point that I was not having to do anything with landings or anything else. I will say that you are probably very correct that it will take a little longer to both solo and complete the training in the RV-10, and it is a bit like drinking from a fire hose when you are doing pattern work. Whereas the 172 is very slow and everything takes it's time to happen, the RV-10 as you know, is not. What happened to us is that she'd hit the throttle and we'd be off the ground, and before her brain could wrap around what was all happening, we were passing thru 500' and turning left for the pattern. Often times she wasn't mentally ready to even turn until 750-1000' because it happened so fast, and then by the time the short crosswind leg was over, we'd hit downwind and could be a few hundred feet higher than wanted. It just really took time for her to mentally keep up with all the nuances of what you have to do, when the plane could do them faster than she could think. It's this in particular that I think makes maybe 5 hours of 172 time a good idea, before flying the RV-10. At least they can slowly get the processes figured out. On the other hand though, if you drink from a fire hose without getting your lips torn off, you can still get hydrated and she did absorb the material...just took a little longer to get comfortable with it. And, I think once she learned all the skills, the RV-10 is really the better plane to fly, even for training. One of the primary reasons for his is the discussion my wife and I had. We both didn't really want her flying some 1950-something old plane, with it's old airframe, old instruments, and old everything, that wouldn't be as reliable as something new. There's no reason NOT to have a nice engine monitor to give you good information. There's no reason not to have a great radio. And, here's a big one...there's a LOT of added safety when your climb rate is 1500-2200fpm, to get you away from the ground a.s.a.p. where you DO have a chance for a glide back to the airport if something goes wrong. That and the fact that go-arounds in the RV-10 are a non-issue from a power perspective. Also, I know from experience that crosswind components of maybe 25kts aren't impossible in the RV-10, and it does crosswinds better than the 172 for the most part. So ultimately, while I would recommend every private pilot be burdened with the fast pace of the RV-10, I do KNOW now that it's actually something that is doable. I would not really think it necessary to build an RV-14, but I think if you really WANT to build another RV, definitely choose the -14, as it will be far more durable and comfortable. But, unless you want the resulting airplane permanently, it's probably a waste of money. My daughter now has over 100 logged hours, split between the RV-10 and RV-14, and probably 30-35 non-logged hours, and she flies darn near as well as most of the RV people I know. Her checkride is coming up soon when she turns 17, and other than some brush-up on some maneuvers I absolutely know she's ready. A couple nights ago I took her out because it was a windy day and all of us in the family are doing lots of crosswind landings in prep for a trip to the islands where there aren't multiple runways. On the way to the airport I called the AWOS phone number and it reported winds as 190@23G32, and we have runways 18/36 and 9/27. I cringed and gave up on crosswinds and figured she'd have her hands full doing straight in's. (Which was true, with all the turbulence) As we flew though I told her: "Plan to FLY DOWN THE RUNWAY ONLY, at 2-3', on Runway 27, and just hold it off but keep your crosswind corrections in. If and only if, you can get everything just perfect, you can land it." It blew me away because she flew just fine and did a couple great landings. I checked the AWOS after touchdown and it was reporting 180@19G28. I don't think we must have hit the 28kt gusts. :) At any rate, she did beautifully, and so did the plane. So, I'm here to tell you that it is absolutely possible and fun to learn in the -10. Now for the insurance part. When it comes to insurance, one of the reasons I build the RV-14 was because I assumed that I would be unable to get insurance for the -10 for her as a student. In the end, it was a waste of money building the RV-14 (but a waste I'm glad I did), because I was able to insure her right away. I put her on the RV-14 first and I think it jacked me almost $1200. Then I went to put her on the last 6 months of the year on the RV-10 and they added her there for $250 (covering 6 months). That was thru Hallmark, quoted through AJG (NationAir). I did get a little shocker at renewal time as my normally $1700 premium is now $2925, but she's a named insured, and still a student, and that's an annual fee. So, while you would think building an RV or buying an RV would be a cost saver due to insurance, I think that you just have to get over the fact that insurance may be available but just at a lot higher cost. Still cheaper than buying and insuring a second plane. There was only one underwriter willing to cover us, so your options may be limited, but you can always explore the costs. If insurance is impossible to obtain, I guess I'd say that I'd still stay away from the RV-7A idea and find other options. There is a place here in my state where you can even lease an airplane for a length of time. About 8-10 years ago I think, I leased a cherokee 140 for 32/hr dry with the only stipulations being 1) need to hangar the plane and 2) need to pay for a minimum of 10 hours per month. But, learning in that plane was not as fun as the RV. So, explore the real insurance cost and see what you find. Talk to Jenny at AJG and see what she says. If you can get the insurance at any price, I'd say go for it in the -10. And, if you build a plane, go for the -14. It at least builds fairly fast, and is comfortable. Tim On 05/02/2018 07:27 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > Ive searched the archives but came up short although I suspect there are a range of opinions so would like to ask the question about using my RV-10 to teach my wife to fly. First I recognize the marital dynamics that can be an issue and thankfully we are in a place where that, for now, is just not an issue. > So my main concern is using the -10 for initial training. My plan was to get access to a 172 for the training but that is proving more difficult than expected. Then I thought about building another RV-7(A) for the mission and have some potential partners to ease the financial burden. I saw an ad for a nice project with a 200hp IO-360 and C/S prop which is more than desired but a very good deal. Then it occurred to me, what is really the difference between that and my -10 from a training perspective? In fact, the -10 is less responsive so that might be a benefit. It would definitely take her more time to be ready to solo and prepared for her checkride, but given that any other thoughts on not using the RV-10 for initial training? There do appear to be some insurance issues which I am starting to look into. > Thanks for any and all thoughts, > Marcus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Andrew Johnson <noconwud(at)earthlink.net>
Date: May 02, 2018
Subject: Looking to upgrade from Grove discs and pads
Folks I dont often post on here but figured I would share an interesting development in the FAA rules and also query for some help on my brakes. First, and inspired by Tim Olson, I just concluded my commercial checkride enroute to getting a CFI. Whats most noteworthy is that I was able to do all my checkride in my 10. FAA just eliminated the reqt for doing any part in a complex for commercial or CFI. Amusingly the arrow that I had been training with has been down for three weeks for a stick governor cable that caused me to abort my initial checkride during the run up. Im going up for my CFI later this month with spin endorsement this weekend. Thank Tim. Second I guess Im one of the lucky ones that got Grove wheels and brakes. Their pads and alignment are just slightly different than Cleveland, and after just speaking with Grove, Ive now learned that the Grove wheels are custom to a small set of RV 10s and they are suggesting I have to order everything from them. I have had problems from the start with their pads sticking and being brittle and I want to get something like the Rapco discs and pads but my concern is that the discs and pads wont fit my wheel and calipers. Does anyone else have Grove and have suggestions on what to do? Thanks in advance. Andy Johnson N13UB Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Looking to upgrade from Grove discs and pads
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: May 02, 2018
Andy, AWESOME on the Commercial! I saw that change in the rules and I think it's great! No reason now NOT to get a commercial ticket. I sure wish I would have had that option. Good luck on the CFI ticket! Hopefully that will go well. I know mine would have gone even better had I been able to use the RV-10. I can't answer on the Grove thing though. I have grove on the -14 but have no idea what to do about replacements other than that I ordered my linings from Grove. And, whereas my first set of linings on the -10 lasted 170 hours or so, as a newbie to these planes, my first set only lasted just over 100 on the RV-14. So I may be going thru them faster than normal on that plane. Tim On 05/02/2018 03:00 PM, Andrew Johnson wrote: > > Folks > > I dont often post on here but figured I would share an interesting development in the FAA rules and also query for some help on my brakes. > > First, and inspired by Tim Olson, I just concluded my commercial checkride enroute to getting a CFI. Whats most noteworthy is that I was able to do all my checkride in my 10. FAA just eliminated the reqt for doing any part in a complex for commercial or CFI. Amusingly the arrow that I had been training with has been down for three weeks for a stick governor cable that caused me to abort my initial checkride during the run up. Im going up for my CFI later this month with spin endorsement this weekend. Thank Tim. > > Second I guess Im one of the lucky ones that got Grove wheels and brakes. Their pads and alignment are just slightly different than Cleveland, and after just speaking with Grove, Ive now learned that the Grove wheels are custom to a small set of RV 10s and they are suggesting I have to order everything from them. I have had problems from the start with their pads sticking and being brittle and I want to get something like the Rapco discs and pads but my concern is that the discs and pads wont fit my wheel and calipers. Does anyone else have Grove and have suggestions on what to do? > > Thanks in advance. > > Andy Johnson > N13UB > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Private Pilot Training
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 02, 2018
Kelly McMullen wrote: > Another minor complication, depending on how aircraft is registered, AFAIK for an instructor to teach for hire in an experimental (for other than transition waiver) the student must have an ownership interest in the aircraft. > The actual rule is that the EAB airplane owner may not be compensated in any way, for the use of his airplane. In this case, I think it's a fair assumption that Tim is not charging his daughter for the airplane. Unless some over-zealous lawyer wants to argue that being a proud father is "compensation". -:) -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479785#479785 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Looking to upgrade from Grove discs and pads
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 02, 2018
Just so everyone's clear: The rule change applies to the check ride, only. Commercial applicants still need to have 10 hours of RG instruction logged. As far as I know this still has to be in an actual retractable gear airplane. (I have previously suggested that a -10, with a "gear up -gear down" switch that actually does nothing other than turn on or off a few lights, should be adequate. Maybe some software that produces horrible scrapping noises if you land "gear up". -:) ) And, for the CFI: for the initial CFI certificate you need to go thru the FSDO, and they will either give you the check ride, or assign you to one of a few Designated examiners that they have approved for doing this. Does anyone know if the FSDO inspectors or "special" DPEs will fly in an EAB? I believe they have the right to say no. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479787#479787 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Private Pilot Training
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: May 02, 2018
I agree with you. The flip side, is an experimental, whether individually owner or in a flying club where members own a share can be used for flight training of any of the owners, because the owners are not compensated, only the instructor gets paid. That is part of EAA's current program to assist formation of flying clubs. Kelly Pres. Chapt 1445 On 5/2/2018 5:38 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > Kelly McMullen wrote: >> Another minor complication, depending on how aircraft is registered, AFAIK for an instructor to teach for hire in an experimental (for other than transition waiver) the student must have an ownership interest in the aircraft. >> > > > The actual rule is that the EAB airplane owner may not be compensated in any way, for the use of his airplane. In this case, I think it's a fair assumption that Tim is not charging his daughter for the airplane. > Unless some over-zealous lawyer wants to argue that being a proud father is "compensation". -:) > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479785#479785 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Andy and Jen Johnson" <noconwud(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Looking to upgrade from Grove discs and pads
Date: May 02, 2018
Speaking from my own experience, the DPE I flew with was one of two at the FSDO approved for doing CFI checkrides. And yes, he was willing to fly in my 10. He took a few laps around it to check it out, but he was already pretty familiar with RVs, and showed no apprehension to flying in it. As you state, you still go to the main FSDO, and then the FSDO decides who goes on your checkride. I'm still very optimistic I can do it in the 10. I know of some inspectors that have said no to the normal certificated aircraft because they deemed them unairworthy. And he also stated the 10 hours 'complex' was still a rule that hadn't been changed, but that it was being seriously looked at after the tragic accident in Florida with an old Arrow being taken on a commercial checkride and having a wing fall off. -----Original Message----- From: Bob Turner Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 8:54 PM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Looking to upgrade from Grove discs and pads Just so everyone's clear: The rule change applies to the check ride, only. Commercial applicants still need to have 10 hours of RG instruction logged. As far as I know this still has to be in an actual retractable gear airplane. (I have previously suggested that a -10, with a "gear up -gear down" switch that actually does nothing other than turn on or off a few lights, should be adequate. Maybe some software that produces horrible scrapping noises if you land "gear up". -:) ) And, for the CFI: for the initial CFI certificate you need to go thru the FSDO, and they will either give you the check ride, or assign you to one of a few Designated examiners that they have approved for doing this. Does anyone know if the FSDO inspectors or "special" DPEs will fly in an EAB? I believe they have the right to say no. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479787#479787 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CFI and complex aircraft.
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: May 02, 2018
Define "old". The Arrow in question was 2007 model. It had somewhere around 7500 hours on it. Preliminary report indicated metal fatigue of some sort, but no corrosion. OTOH, I flew last weekend, safety pilot, in an Archer with similar background but just old enough to have steam gauges, and 15,000+ hours on it. Prior to my -10, I owned a 1965 aircraft with about 6500 hours on it, prior to that a 1953 aircraft with maybe 4500 hours. The biggest problem with the complex requirement is that I think only the Arrow is being produced these days. Don't know about the C172RG, the C177RG was discontinued in 1978. The 200 hp Mooney was discontinued in the 90s. So the majority of aircraft available are at least 30 years old. On 5/2/2018 8:17 PM, Andy and Jen Johnson wrote: > > And he also stated the 10 hours 'complex' was still a rule that hadn't > been changed, but that it was being seriously looked at after the tragic > accident in Florida with an old Arrow being taken on a commercial > checkride and having a wing fall off. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Private Pilot Training
Date: May 03, 2018
I think as the father its pretty much a given that the bulk of the money flow is from dad to kid....so even if she paid me, Id still be many tens of thousands behind on cash by the time shes old enough to get her Private. :) Truth is , to be able to see her finish Im happy to pay for the plane, insurance, fuel, and even some fuel so she remains current after shes done. I want her spending her money on College. And no, I do not need any more adult children so please dont ask if you can call me daddy too and get free fuel. :). Tim > On May 2, 2018, at 7:38 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > > Kelly McMullen wrote: >> Another minor complication, depending on how aircraft is registered, AFAIK for an instructor to teach for hire in an experimental (for other than transition waiver) the student must have an ownership interest in the aircraft. >> > > > The actual rule is that the EAB airplane owner may not be compensated in any way, for the use of his airplane. In this case, I think it's a fair assumption that Tim is not charging his daughter for the airplane. > Unless some over-zealous lawyer wants to argue that being a proud father is "compensation". -:) > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Looking to upgrade from Grove discs and pads
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: May 03, 2018
One addition to this: Right now they're still HOPING to push thru something that allows Technically Advanced Aircraft to qualify, rather than only complex. That would be a huge boost. Hope that happens, as it would then make it possible for an RV-10 owner to do both commercial and CFI in their own plane, where it makes sense. And, regarding the FSDO for CFI checkrides, I know that the common statement is that all CFI checkrides are done with the FSDO. That's still sort of true, but it does depend on the FSDO and their personnel availability. When I did my CFI checride, I did it with the Orlando FSDO but it was set up by my instructor and a local DPE, who got the approval to do it. So, depending on where you do the actual ride and who does your CFI training, it may indeed not need to be with an FAA official employee, but a DPE. I do agree with Bob that it may be that in some situations, it would be hard to find an examiner who would ride in an EAB. It's been a constant worry of mine for my daughter's checkride. I've been told by many people not to worry because they're sure that many of them would be happy to, and my old DPE up here was happy to as well. But, they may be a little more squeamish. Luckily I found a DPE an hour away that owns a Rocket, so I didn't even call around, I just decided to go to him. No bias that way. Tim On 05/02/2018 07:54 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > Just so everyone's clear: The rule change applies to the check ride, only. Commercial applicants still need to have 10 hours of RG instruction logged. As far as I know this still has to be in an actual retractable gear airplane. (I have previously suggested that a -10, with a "gear up -gear down" switch that actually does nothing other than turn on or off a few lights, should be adequate. Maybe some software that produces horrible scrapping noises if you land "gear up". -:) ) > > And, for the CFI: for the initial CFI certificate you need to go thru the FSDO, and they will either give you the check ride, or assign you to one of a few Designated examiners that they have approved for doing this. Does anyone know if the FSDO inspectors or "special" DPEs will fly in an EAB? I believe they have the right to say no. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: The (Ground) Plane Truth
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: May 03, 2018
Hi I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of radio physics is exceptionally limited. This brings me to the question of ground planes. I am told that a ground plane does not require metal to metal contact with an antenna. Is this correct? The reason I ask is I am wondering if I should un-install antennas prior to paint? Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479827#479827 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Date: May 03, 2018
Subject: Re: The (Ground) Plane Truth
Shoot fire, you might as well throw gas on the primer war fire.... Here is the deal. RF ground is a different animal from DC ground. I recommend you remove all external antennas prior to paint. After paint re-install the antennas using a star washer on the inside of the fuselage on the antenna mounting studs. Done. I have years of running HF and VHF mobile antennas pumping out 100+watts that where on mag mounts. The mag mount itself had Mylar file between the magnet and the car - along with the car paint. This resulted in no metal to metal contact - Infinity DC resistance. The antennas were perfectly happy to be RF coupled to the car ground plane, just like RF is happy to pass through a capacitor. Add the star washer anyway just to have a locking device and a DC connection for noise (very low probability, but star washers are cheap). But - no matter what you do check all antennas with a real antenna analyzer from the radio (so that you check your coax and all connectors). This is how you know stuff works before you fly. People call me up on radio problems and this is the first thing I do. I find broken antenna mounts, cut or pulled out coax and crimp connectors that are just ugly. Have fun, Carl > On May 3, 2018, at 5:47 PM, kearney wrote: > > > Hi > > I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of radio physics is exceptionally limited. This brings me to the question of ground planes. I am told that a ground plane does not require metal to metal contact with an antenna. Is this correct? The reason I ask is I am wondering if I should un-install antennas prior to paint? > > Cheers > > Les > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479827#479827 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: The (Ground) Plane Truth
From: "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
Date: May 03, 2018
Thanks Carl. I assume most avionics shops would have an analyzer. Is this correct? Cheers Les Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479831#479831 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lenny Iszak <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com>
Subject: Re: The (Ground) Plane Truth
Date: May 04, 2018
Les, The ground plane does requires electrical contact with the base of the antenna. Lenny > On May 3, 2018, at 8:47 PM, kearney wrote: > > > Hi > > I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of radio physics is exceptionally limited. This brings me to the question of ground planes. I am told that a ground plane does not require metal to metal contact with an antenna. Is this correct? The reason I ask is I am wondering if I should un-install antennas prior to paint? > > Cheers > > Les > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479827#479827 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net>
Date: May 03, 2018
Subject: Re: The (Ground) Plane Truth
Just find your local ham radio operator that has something like this: https: //www.gigaparts.com/mfj-259c.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6Niipvzq2gIVV4ezCh3UVA UBEAQYASABEgL2VPD_BwE Better yep, get one for you local EAA chapter as a shared tool. Carl > On May 3, 2018, at 6:51 PM, kearney wrote: > > > Thanks Carl. > > I assume most avionics shops would have an analyzer. Is this correct? > > Cheers > > Les > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479831#479831 > > > > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 03, 2018
Subject: Re: Private Pilot Training
My comments were with regard to an independent CFI charging for his/her services with student in experimental. If there is no transfer of funds, AFAIK no issue. I know that certain very generous CFIs are literally giving of their time and aircraft to provide transition training without FAA/insurance involvement. I in fact benefited from one such very generous individual. If you don't want to be a sugar daddy, how about "Uncle"? 8^) Sent from my IBM-360 main frame On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > I think as the father it=99s pretty much a given that the bulk of t he money > flow is from dad to kid....so even if she paid me, I=99d still be m any tens > of thousands behind on cash by the time she=99s old enough to get h er > Private. :) > Truth is , to be able to see her finish I=99m happy to pay for the plane, > insurance, fuel, and even some fuel so she remains current after she =99s > done. I want her spending her money on College. And no, I do not need a ny > more adult children so please don=99t ask if you can call me daddy too and > get free fuel. :). > Tim > > > On May 2, 2018, at 7:38 PM, Bob Turner wrote: >> >> >> >> Kelly McMullen wrote: >> >>> Another minor complication, depending on how aircraft is registered, >>> AFAIK for an instructor to teach for hire in an experimental (for other >>> than transition waiver) the student must have an ownership interest in the >>> aircraft. >>> >>> >> >> The actual rule is that the EAB airplane owner may not be compensated in >> any way, for the use of his airplane. In this case, I think it's a fair >> assumption that Tim is not charging his daughter for the airplane. >> Unless some over-zealous lawyer wants to argue that being a proud father >> is "compensation". -:) >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 03, 2018
Subject: Re: The (Ground) Plane Truth
Waste of time Les. If you properly installed the antenna with gasket and/or sealant the paint shop should properly mask the antenna, so it doesn't get painted. The grounding will be unchanged. On most com antennas, the ground path is through the 3 or 4 screws that attach the antenna to the doubler you put under the fuselage skin. The clean way to do that is to install nut plates on the doubler, then rivet doubler to inside of fuselage skin. That way the ground is with the nutplates and solid via rivets to fuselage. Good installs include a bead of sealant around the outside edge of the antenna. Good paint shops protect antennas throughout skin prep and painting. That said, be certain they protect the wheel bearings from pressure washing, or repack the bearings before the plane rolls out of the shop. Kelly Sent from my IBM-360 main frame On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 5:47 PM, kearney wrote: > > Hi > > I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of radio physics is > exceptionally limited. This brings me to the question of ground planes. I > am told that a ground plane does not require metal to metal contact with an > antenna. Is this correct? The reason I ask is I am wondering if I should > un-install antennas prior to paint? > > Cheers > > Les > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479827#479827 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Private Pilot Training
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 03, 2018
Kelly McMullen wrote: > My comments were with regard to an independent CFI charging for his/her services with student in experimental. > ] There is no prohibition on paying a cfi for instruction in an EAB. The prohibition is on the airplane itself - it cannot be used for compensation. If the cfi furnishes the airplane, part 91 imposes the usual commercial use restrictions, since it is presumed that the airplane is being used to generate compensation for the cfi. But if a good friend lets you use his EAB for free, then you may pay the cfi. In the situation you described, if anything goes wrong, the insurance company is within its rights to deny coverage. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479839#479839 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: The (Ground) Plane Truth
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 03, 2018
I usually agree with Carl, but not this time. Capacitive coupling at RF frequencies usually has low impedance but does introduce an undesirable phase shift. Mag mount car antennas can be designed to balance this shift out, and some feed techniques (a gamma match as used in the Archer design) use a capacitor to introduce a desired phase shift. But standard aircraft antennas need a zero phase shift connection to ground. A good connection between the coax braid and the ground plane will suffice for simple antennas (nothing but a wire in the base). If the base has a matching network, then it will also need a good connection to the braid. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479840#479840 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: May 04, 2018
Subject: Re: The (Ground) Plane Truth
I think the operative word is =9Cshould=9D. I have a plane in my hangar that is very nicely painted. However, the Paint shop painted over th e data plate. It=99s almost impossible to read it. Then they put their =9Cpainted by=9D sticker right next to the painted over data pl ate. What should happen is not always what does happen. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad > On May 3, 2018, at 10:58 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > Waste of time Les. If you properly installed the antenna with gasket and/o r sealant > the paint shop should properly mask the antenna, so it doesn't get painted . > The grounding will be unchanged. On most com antennas, the ground path is t hrough > the 3 or 4 screws that attach the antenna to the doubler you put under the fuselage skin. > The clean way to do that is to install nut plates on the doubler, then riv et doubler to inside of fuselage skin. > That way the ground is with the nutplates and solid via rivets to fuselage . > Good installs include a bead of sealant around the outside edge of the ant enna. > Good paint shops protect antennas throughout skin prep and painting. > That said, be certain they protect the wheel bearings from pressure washin g, or repack the bearings before the > plane rolls out of the shop. > Kelly > > Sent from my IBM-360 main frame > >> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 5:47 PM, kearney wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of radio physics is exceptio nally limited. This brings me to the question of ground planes. I am told th at a ground plane does not require metal to metal contact with an antenna. I s this correct? The reason I ask is I am wondering if I should un-install an tennas prior to paint? >> >> Cheers >> >> Les >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479827#479827 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========================= >> -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 >> ========================= >> >> >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Private Pilot Training
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: May 04, 2018
No worries, I knew what you meant. To me the rules are actually pretty clear, and the few workarounds that there are, are also cut and dry, such as training for free. I once said that if I won that big lottery, I'd love to buy about 10 RV-12's, and make a fleet of trainers and offer free flight instruction to anyone who wanted to learn to fly. I figured if you could subsidize the cost to get into the activity, there would be a certain percentage of people who would drop out afterwards because they couldn't really afford to fly, but that a healthy percentage would continue on. And, I view the sheer number of pilots and growing the pilot population to be our most urgent issue. We need to get people to dream again, to get into the air, and to see how fun and useful it is. At that point, those who really have the dream will keep moving ahead, and that will drive everything from airplane sales to avionics and even improve todays politics. I think it could be done, in all RV-12's, if done for no cost to the trainee. Then, we also need to foster more and more flying clubs. We have precisely ZERO in my neck of the woods, and that would greatly help drive more flying. Now, if someone would just get me a winning lottery combination, I'll get right on it. Tim On 05/03/2018 09:46 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > My comments were with regard to an independent CFI charging for his/her > services with student in experimental. > If there is no transfer of funds, AFAIK no issue. I know that certain > very generous CFIs are literally giving of their > time and aircraft to provide transition training without FAA/insurance > involvement. I in fact benefited from > one such very generous individual. > If you don't want to be a sugar daddy, how about "Uncle"? 8^) > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David J. Fritzsche" <dfritz(at)bpgsim.com>
Subject: Door Seals
Date: May 04, 2018
I am getting ready to install door seals. Some have installed them on the door openings and others have installed them on the doors themselves. Is there any consensus on which option is better or is this another primer war? David ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Door Seals
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 04, 2018
Good analogy. IMHO technique and attention to detail are more important than the brand of paint you use. Same thing for brand and placement of door seals. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479855#479855 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: Re: Door Seals
Date: May 04, 2018
Not wanting to inflame any kind of war, and there are always "better ways" of doing things, but I installed the stock Van's seals exactly as they describe and have been really happy with them. I haven't noticed any leaks coming in, and though I agonized a lot of what to do initially, now that they're in and the plane has been flying for a bit more than a year, I honestly haven't given them a second thought. One thing I like about the seals on the door is that they lift out of the way when the door is open and people are less likely to catch on them when getting in and out. In particular, I've found that passengers with longer legs who jump in before I tell them the "proper way" to do so often struggle to get their legs in and if the seals were on the door openings they would definitely be catching on them. But of course, I've seen other RV-10s with seals on the frame and they look great. I'm sure that you'll be happy with whatever you decide to do. Dan > On 2018-May-04, at 9:59 AM, David J. Fritzsche wrote: > > > I am getting ready to install door seals. Some have installed them on the door openings and others have installed them on the doors themselves. Is there any consensus on which option is better or is this another primer war? > > David > > > > --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rick Lark" <jrlark(at)bmts.com>
Subject: baggage net
Date: May 04, 2018
Guys, I accidentally found a great cargo/baggage net for my RV10. I previously owned a 2013 VW diesel Passat that came with a black cargo net. The VW cargo net is the perfect size if your tie downs are in the bottom 4 corners of the baggage area. Even if your tie downs are elsewhere I think the VW net would work great. Rick C-GDMH #40956 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 05, 2018
Subject: Cleveland Wheels - parts breakdown
Hard to believe its almost been a year since the RV-10 started flying. A year of flying goes by waaaaay faster than a year of building! In the process of inspecting my brakes, tires, wheel bearings, etc, I discovered that one of the felt seals that sits in the molded cup had been torn. I cant seem to find a parts breakdown for the Cleveland mains and would like to order a few extra seals to keep on the shelf. A local parts house had a seal of the right diameter but too thick. So I trimmed it down and made it fit. But Id still like to identify the correct part number and possibly even the correct bearings (with the timken auto equivalent part numbers). That would be very helpful if one of you had it. As far as the inspection goes on the lower end of the airplane. (120ish Hours and Im guessing around 200 cycles - need to check the exact number). The tires needed to be flipped on their wheels. The two outboard treads were gone on the left main. The right main had a little more tread than the left but not much. The center and inboard edges were pretty much untouched. Ill easily be able to run these tires for another year and will have to replace them next year. The felt seal on the right main needed replaced as it was torn in two places. I was worried about the corrosion issues that Dave Saylor experienced with his plane that sat. Mine was good. All bearings and races looked new and were repacked with Aeroshell 5 (since it got time this far corrosion free). The only bearing that showed some wear was the right main where the seal broke. It shows a tiny amount of wear but nothing to worry about. At the end of phase 1, I had reset my breakout force. But in rechecking it is was ridiculously light. So I reset it again. Other than that, no issues down low. Pretty straight forward and minimal stuff to fix.... Phil Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 05, 2018
Subject: Re: Cleveland Wheels - parts breakdown
Here ya go, Phil. I think this is the page you're looking for. Here's the whole catalog <http://www.parker.com/parkerimages/Parker.com/Literature/Aircraft%20Wheel% 20&%20Brake%20Division/AWB%20Static%20Files%20for%20Literature/AWBPC0001.pd f> . --Dave On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Phillip Perry wrote: > > Hard to believe it=99s almost been a year since the RV-10 started f lying. A > year of flying goes by waaaaay faster than a year of building! > > In the process of inspecting my brakes, tires, wheel bearings, etc, I > discovered that one of the felt seals that sits in the molded cup had bee n > torn. > > I can=99t seem to find a parts breakdown for the Cleveland mains an d would > like to order a few extra seals to keep on the shelf. > > A local parts house had a seal of the right diameter but too thick. So I > trimmed it down and made it fit. But I=99d still like to identify the > correct part number and possibly even the correct bearings (with the timk en > auto equivalent part numbers). > > That would be very helpful if one of you had it. > > As far as the inspection goes on the lower end of the airplane. (120ish > Hours and I=99m guessing around 200 cycles - need to check the exac t number). > > The tires needed to be flipped on their wheels. The two outboard treads > were gone on the left main. The right main had a little more tread than t he > left but not much. The center and inboard edges were pretty much > untouched. > > I=99ll easily be able to run these tires for another year and will have to > replace them next year. > > The felt seal on the right main needed replaced as it was torn in two > places. > > I was worried about the corrosion issues that Dave Saylor experienced wit h > his plane that sat. Mine was good. All bearings and races looked new > and were repacked with Aeroshell 5 (since it got time this far corrosion > free). The only bearing that showed some wear was the right main where > the seal broke. It shows a tiny amount of wear but nothing to worry > about. > > At the end of phase 1, I had reset my breakout force. But in recheckin g > it is was ridiculously light. So I reset it again. > > Other than that, no issues down low. Pretty straight forward and minimal > stuff to fix.... > > Phil > > > Sent from my iPhone =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: PIREP : Aerosport Power Builder School
From: "nukeflyboy" <flymoore(at)charter.net>
Date: May 05, 2018
A little off topic but Don and Kelly are correct. Running LOP is much easier on the engine. CHTs typically drop 30 F when you lean, and that is probably the best measure of engine stress. Swapping injector orifices is easy. Balance the flow and run LOP. I typically burn 10 gph or less in cruise, depending on altitude. And air is cheaper than fuel. -------- Dave Moore RV-6 built and sold RV-10 built and flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479876#479876 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cleveland Wheels - parts breakdown
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: May 05, 2018
It is the correct page. Note that the molded seals are nice, similar to what Matco uses on the nose wheel. However, be sitting down when you price those gems. Felt works fine, especially if you are going to re-pack the bearings every year. You are doing great. Watch your brake pads. Depending on amount of use, you may very well need to change pads before your next year is up. On 5/5/2018 3:10 PM, David Saylor wrote: > Here ya go, Phil. I think this is the page you're looking for. > > Here's the whole catalog > <http://www.parker.com/parkerimages/Parker.com/Literature/Aircraft%20Wheel%20&%20Brake%20Division/AWB%20Static%20Files%20for%20Literature/AWBPC0001.pdf>. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 05, 2018
Subject: Re: Cleveland Wheels - parts breakdown
Thanks For reminding me Kelly. I meant to say the pads look really good. But I will watch them at fill-time. I think the wear is a direct correlation to our runway length. Weve got 5,500 on an uncontrolled field, so I can usually ride a mile long wheelie from the touchdown point all the way to the hangar area. Minimal braking here on the home field - most of the time. Phil Sent from my iPhone > On May 5, 2018, at 7:46 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > It is the correct page. Note that the molded seals are nice, similar to what Matco uses on the nose wheel. However, be sitting down when you price those gems. Felt works fine, especially if you are going to re-pack the bearings every year. You are doing great. Watch your brake pads. Depending on amount of use, you may very well need to change pads before your next year is up. > >> On 5/5/2018 3:10 PM, David Saylor wrote: >> Here ya go, Phil. I think this is the page you're looking for. >> Here's the whole catalog <http://www.parker.com/parkerimages/Parker.com/Literature/Aircraft%20Wheel%20&%20Brake%20Division/AWB%20Static%20Files%20for%20Literature/AWBPC0001.pdf>. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 06, 2018
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Cleveland Wheels - parts breakdown
I always use a pair of digital calipers and measure my brake pads.=C2- G ives you pretty good idea how many hours, and/or how many months uses up ho w many thousands.Don il.com> wrote: Thanks For reminding me Kelly.=C2- I meant to say the pads look really go od.=C2- But I will watch them at fill-time.=C2- I think the wear is a direct correlation to our runway length.=C2- We =99ve got 5,500=99 on an uncontrolled field, so I can usually ride a mile long wheelie from the touchdown point all the way to the hangar are a.=C2- Minimal braking here on the home field - most of the time. Phil Sent from my iPhone > On May 5, 2018, at 7:46 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > It is the correct page. Note that the molded seals are nice, similar to w hat Matco uses on the nose wheel. However, be sitting down when you price t hose gems. Felt works fine, especially if you are going to re-pack the bear ings every year. You are doing great. Watch your brake pads. Depending on a mount of use, you may very well need to change pads before your next year i s up. > >> On 5/5/2018 3:10 PM, David Saylor wrote: >> Here ya go, Phil.=C2- I think this is the page you're looking for. >> Here's the whole catalog <http://www.parker.com/parkerimages/Parker.com/ Literature/Aircraft%20Wheel%20&%20Brake%20Division/AWB%20Static%20Files%20f or%20Literature/AWBPC0001.pdf>. > > > > S - WIKI - - =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 06, 2018
Subject: Re: Cleveland Wheels - parts breakdown
Just to follow-up, Spruce does not carry the exact part number for the felt nor the molded seal. I haven't looked elsewhere for the parts. They do carry those items for a generic Cleveland 6" wheel that should work fine. Sent from my IBM-360 main frame On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > It is the correct page. Note that the molded seals are nice, similar to > what Matco uses on the nose wheel. However, be sitting down when you price > those gems. Felt works fine, especially if you are going to re-pack the > bearings every year. You are doing great. Watch your brake pads. Depending > on amount of use, you may very well need to change pads before your next > year is up. > > On 5/5/2018 3:10 PM, David Saylor wrote: > >> Here ya go, Phil. I think this is the page you're looking for. >> >> Here's the whole catalog <http://www.parker.com/parkeri >> mages/Parker.com/Literature/Aircraft%20Wheel%20&%20Brake% >> 20Division/AWB%20Static%20Files%20for%20Literature/AWBPC0001.pdf>. >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Date: May 15, 2018
Subject: Garmin interconnections
Guys Does anyone in this magnificent group has GARMIN G3X and a Garmin Transponder already working in his plane? If yes, could you please share with me the interconnection schematics and the configuration information, to help me putting my Transponder working. Thanks Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: Garmin interconnections
Date: May 15, 2018
Page 27-25 of the install manual shows both the pinouts and the configuration settings (for both the G3X side and the GTX side). Cheers, Stein -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 12:55 PM Subject: RV10-List: Garmin interconnections Guys Does anyone in this magnificent group has GARMIN G3X and a Garmin Transponder already working in his plane? If yes, could you please share with me the interconnection schematics and the configuration information, to help me putting my Transponder working. Thanks Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: IO-540 hot starts
Date: May 15, 2018
Hi everyone. I'm wondering what procedures people are using for starting their IO-540s, particularly hot starts. My setup is pretty much stock - no fuel return line, using the AVStar fuel injection system my factory Lycoming through Vans came with. Normal Slick magnetos (again, stock with the engine), with the SlickSTART module. For normal cold starts, what seems to work reliably for me is throttle open 1/2", boost pump on, mixture rich for a few seconds (until pressure stabilizes), then mixture ICO, boost pump off, and then start. As soon as the engine starts, I go full rich to ensure it keeps going and then usually right away after, pull the mixture back an inch or so. Pretty uneventful and usually works without muss or fuss. For hot starts (which in my plane seem to be necessary even if the engine's been off for nearly an hour), based on another discussion I read awhile ago, I have been doing a flooded procedure: throttle full forward, boost pump on, mixture rich for about 2 seconds then ICO, leave the boost pump on, and start cranking. After the engine starts (usually within 3 or 4 seconds), somehow get the mixture forward and throttle back at the same time. But since I'm not one of those with three hands, usually the engine surges to relatively high rpm before I can get the throttle back (I'd tried getting the throttle back first, but in so doing usually the engine quits before I can get the mixture forward. Getting the mixture forward right away after the engine fires usually means the engine keeps running, though I'm sure it's hard on the engine with not being able to get the throttle back right away. There's got to be a better way so hot starts can be reliable while keeping initial RPM low, to reduce wear and stress on the engine and prop, not to mention to just come off more professional :-) I saw one discussion awhile ago where a poster suggested 1/2" throttle, no boost pump at all, mixture ICO, crank and then if it doesn't fire, to slowly bring mixture forward until it does. I don't understand how it could fire at all while the mixture is at ICO if the boost pump hasn't pressurized fuel in the lines beforehand, but then I'm the furthest thing from an engine mechanic. Could a hot start procedure really be just that simple? So I'm wondering if anyone has advice on what they do, in a stock Lycoming system with regular Slick mags and no fuel return line. Thanks! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: IO-540 hot starts
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: May 15, 2018
Dan, It took me awhile to develop a reliable cold and hot start technique. This after flying a 200 hp Mooney with the exact same mechanical fuel pump and same Bendix/Precision RSA fuel injection. What I found is that the RV fuel system has one significant issue that my Mooney did not. That is the rise in the fuel lines to the fuel selector. The boost off, mixture idle cutoff until cranked a few turns worked on that engine. When I first started flying the RV I had problems with the engine starting and quitting, whether cold or hot. What I found was that if I turned on the boost pump just before cranking, the problem of the engine quitting went away. For hot, I would bring in the mixture immediately, as I cranked, before the engine fired. I use about 1/4" of throttle for both hot and cold. (about what gives 1000 rpm fast idle) For cold I go full rich just before cranking. Never see more than 1200 rpm on either hot or cold start. I rarely have the engine quit after start as long as the boost pump is on until engine is running smoothly. I urge you to cease using any flooded start technique. Very hard on your cylinders and cam. First you get raw fuel in the cylinders that washes off any oil film. Then you get high rpm before any oil has splashed on the cam. One other tidbit. Consider the IO540 to be a hot start any time the crankcase inside the air inlets feels above ambient temperature. Kelly 140+ hrs since first flight. On 5/15/2018 4:21 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: I saw one discussion awhile ago where a poster suggested 1/2" throttle, no boost pump at all, mixture ICO, crank and then if it doesn't fire, to slowly bring mixture forward until it does. I don't understand how it could fire at all while the mixture is at ICO if the boost pump hasn't pressurized fuel in the lines beforehand, but then I'm the furthest thing from an engine mechanic. Could a hot start procedure really be just that simple? > > So I'm wondering if anyone has advice on what they do, in a stock Lycoming system with regular Slick mags and no fuel return line. > > Thanks! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: IO-540 hot starts
Date: May 16, 2018
Hi Dan, I have the Precision Air Motive Fuel Servo on my stock IO-540 D4A5 with Sli ck Magnetos and the Slick Start Module. Cold Starts pretty much the same as you describe except that I only use a 1 /4 inch of throttle. If the plane has been sitting for only a short time on a hot day:- Mixture at Cut Off Throttle about =C2=BD inch. Crank and when it fires Mixture to full rich. After it stabilises, set RPM to 950 or 1000 and then lean for best idle. If the plane has been sitting for a long time on a hot day say an (hour or more.) Same setup up as above except :- While cranking if it doesn=99t fire within about 10 to 12 seconds. Stop cranking. Then Mixture to Rich. Boost pump on until it shows some flow, (maybe 3 or 4 seconds) Mixture back to Cut off and boost pump off. Then repeat the hot start procedure :- Mixture at Cut off Throttle =C2=BC to =C2=BD inch. Crank When it fires, Mixture to rich Set the RPM and then lean. On the odd occasions on very Hot days I have needed to turn the boost pump on once it=99s running because it wants to die due to vapour in the lines. Cheers John MacCallum VH-DUU RV10 #41016 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Dan Charrois Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2018 9:21 AM Subject: RV10-List: IO-540 hot starts Hi everyone. I'm wondering what procedures people are using for starting their IO-540s, particularly hot starts. My setup is pretty much stock - no fuel return line, using the AVStar fuel injection system my factory Lycoming through Vans came with. Normal Slick magnetos (again, stock with the engine), with the SlickSTART module. For normal cold starts, what seems to work reliably for me is throttle open 1/2", boost pump on, mixture rich for a few seconds (until pressure stabil izes), then mixture ICO, boost pump off, and then start. As soon as the en gine starts, I go full rich to ensure it keeps going and then usually right away after, pull the mixture back an inch or so. Pretty uneventful and us ually works without muss or fuss. For hot starts (which in my plane seem to be necessary even if the engine's been off for nearly an hour), based on another discussion I read awhile ag o, I have been doing a flooded procedure: throttle full forward, boost pump on, mixture rich for about 2 seconds then ICO, leave the boost pump on, an d start cranking. After the engine starts (usually within 3 or 4 seconds), somehow get the mixture forward and throttle back at the same time. But s ince I'm not one of those with three hands, usually the engine surges to re latively high rpm before I can get the throttle back (I'd tried getting the throttle back first, but in so doing usually the engine quits before I can get the mixture forward. Getting the mixture forward right away after the engine fires usually means the engine keeps running, though I'm sure it's hard on the engine with not being able to get the throttle back right away. There's got to be a better way so hot starts can be reliable while keeping initial RPM low, to reduce wear and stress on the engine and prop, not to m ention to just come off more professional :-) I saw one discussion awhile ago where a poster suggested 1/2" throttle, no boost pump at all, mixture I CO, crank and then if it doesn't fire, to slowly bring mixture forward unti l it does. I don't understand how it could fire at all while the mixture i s at ICO if the boost pump hasn't pressurized fuel in the lines beforehand, but then I'm the furthest thing from an engine mechanic. Could a hot star t procedure really be just that simple? So I'm wondering if anyone has advice on what they do, in a stock Lycoming system with regular Slick mags and no fuel return line. Thanks! Dan --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: IO-540 hot starts
Date: May 16, 2018
Hi Kelly, I reckon your right with turning the boost pump on. Especially on Hot Days when there is vapour in the system. I will modify my Hot start procedure to:- Throttle =C2=BC inch Mixture Cut off Boost pump on Crank When it fires, Mixture to Rich Then set RPM and lean for best idle. If it doesn=99t fire then try again after purging the lines with abou t 4 or 5 seconds of flow and the Mixture rich. Then repeat your procedure. Cheers, John MacCallum VH-DUU Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Kelly McMullen Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2018 10:29 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: IO-540 hot starts Dan, It took me awhile to develop a reliable cold and hot start technique. This after flying a 200 hp Mooney with the exact same mechanical fuel pump and same Bendix/Precision RSA fuel injection. What I found is that the RV fuel system has one significant issue that my Mooney did not. That is the rise in the fuel lines to the fuel selector. The boost off, mixture idle cutoff until cranked a few turns worked on that engine. When I first started flying the RV I had problems with the engine starting and quitting, whether cold or hot. What I found was that if I turned on the boost pump just before cranking, the problem of the engine quitting went away. For hot, I would bring in the mixture immediately, as I cranked, before the engine fired. I use about 1/4" of throttle for both hot and cold. (about what gives 1000 rpm fast idle) For cold I go full rich just before cranking. Never see more than 1200 rpm on either hot or cold start. I rarely have the engine quit after start as long as the boost pump is on until engine is running smoothly. I urge you to cease using any flooded start technique. Very hard on your cylinders and cam. First you get raw fuel in the cylinders that washes off any oil film. Then you get high rpm before any oil has splashed on the cam. One other tidbit. Consider the IO540 to be a hot start any time the crankcase inside the air inlets feels above ambient temperature. Kelly 140+ hrs since first flight. On 5/15/2018 4:21 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: I saw one discussion awhile ago where a poster suggested 1/2" throttle, no boost pump at all, mixture ICO, crank and then if it doesn't fire, to slowly bring mixture forward until it does. I don't understand how it could fire at all while the mixture is at ICO if the boost pump hasn't pressurized fuel in the lines beforehand, but then I'm the furthest thing from an engine mechanic. Could a hot start procedure really be just that simple? > > So I'm wondering if anyone has advice on what they do, in a stock Lycomin g system with regular Slick mags and no fuel return line. > > Thanks! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 15, 2018
Subject: Re: IO-540 hot starts
I do fuel injected hot and cold starts, Lyc and Continental, all the same way: Throttle and mixture full forward Boost pump on for a good squirt. On my plane, I let the fuel pressure build until it stops rising quickly. That takes 5-6 seconds. Throttle barely open. On my quadrant, 1/8-1/4 inch off the idle stop Mixture lean Crank until it starts to sputter Mixture gently forward Mag switches depend on the airframe. This technique gives me start-to-idle RPM right away without the high RPM surge you hear around the ramp. If it doesn't start right away there are often other issues. As you suggested, the idea is to create a rich mixture, which leans itself to the required starting mixture as you crank. I'm not sure I'd call it "flooded". A healthy priming shot gets cool, liquid fuel into the system downstream of the spider. Up to that point all my FWF fuel lines are fire sleeved, so hopefully they have some degree of insulation against heat. If you're worried about degreasing your cylinder walls, I can say mine are fine after 1800 hours. This has worked well for me on RVs, Cessnas, Bonanzas, Pipers, etc. Your starter may have a time limit. Stick to that. Mine is 10 seconds, then it has to cool for 20 seconds. I find that a lot of times some batteries can't crank long enough to clear out the excess fuel and get to the correct mixture. So of course the battery has to be in good shape, strong enough to crank to your starter time limit. 10 seconds, in my case, seems like a LONG time, especially when it usually starts in 2-3 seconds. But if I hang in there and let it crank away the excess fuel, I have pretty good luck. If it doesn't start, I usually start over from scratch. I think a lot of starting problems are timing related and battery related. Make sure those things are right and the starting gets a lot easier. --Dave On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:21 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > Hi everyone. > > I'm wondering what procedures people are using for starting their IO-540s, > particularly hot starts. > > My setup is pretty much stock - no fuel return line, using the AVStar fuel > injection system my factory Lycoming through Vans came with. Normal Slick > magnetos (again, stock with the engine), with the SlickSTART module. > > For normal cold starts, what seems to work reliably for me is throttle > open 1/2", boost pump on, mixture rich for a few seconds (until pressure > stabilizes), then mixture ICO, boost pump off, and then start. As soon as > the engine starts, I go full rich to ensure it keeps going and then usually > right away after, pull the mixture back an inch or so. Pretty uneventful > and usually works without muss or fuss. > > For hot starts (which in my plane seem to be necessary even if the > engine's been off for nearly an hour), based on another discussion I read > awhile ago, I have been doing a flooded procedure: throttle full forward, > boost pump on, mixture rich for about 2 seconds then ICO, leave the boost > pump on, and start cranking. After the engine starts (usually within 3 or > 4 seconds), somehow get the mixture forward and throttle back at the same > time. But since I'm not one of those with three hands, usually the engine > surges to relatively high rpm before I can get the throttle back (I'd tried > getting the throttle back first, but in so doing usually the engine quits > before I can get the mixture forward. Getting the mixture forward right > away after the engine fires usually means the engine keeps running, though > I'm sure it's hard on the engine with not being able to get the throttle > back right away. > > There's got to be a better way so hot starts can be reliable while keeping > initial RPM low, to reduce wear and stress on the engine and prop, not to > mention to just come off more professional :-) I saw one discussion awhile > ago where a poster suggested 1/2" throttle, no boost pump at all, mixture > ICO, crank and then if it doesn't fire, to slowly bring mixture forward > until it does. I don't understand how it could fire at all while the > mixture is at ICO if the boost pump hasn't pressurized fuel in the lines > beforehand, but then I'm the furthest thing from an engine mechanic. Could > a hot start procedure really be just that simple? > > So I'm wondering if anyone has advice on what they do, in a stock Lycoming > system with regular Slick mags and no fuel return line. > > Thanks! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 15, 2018
Subject: Re: IO-540 hot starts
Boost pump does not remove any vapor in the lines, because the Bendix/Precision injection system is closed, with no return lines. What the boost pump does is eliminate the mechanical pump trying to suck fuel from the tanks, which may in itself create vapor. Probably will vary as to when mixture needs to go rich, depending on engine temp, OAT, etc. Not sure why the SlickStart is not doing a better job of getting the engine started. Sent from my IBM-360 main frame On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 5:56 PM, John MacCallum wrote: > Hi Kelly, > > I reckon your right with turning the boost pump on. > > Especially on Hot Days when there is vapour in the system. > > > I will modify my Hot start procedure to:- > > > Throttle =C2=BC inch > > Mixture Cut off > > Boost pump on > > Crank > > When it fires, Mixture to Rich > > Then set RPM and lean for best idle. > > > If it doesn=99t fire then try again after purging the lines with ab out > > 4 or 5 seconds of flow and the Mixture rich. > > Then repeat your procedure. > > > Cheers, > > > John MacCallum > > VH-DUU > > > Sent from Mail for > Windows 10 > > > *From: *Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> > *Sent: *Wednesday, 16 May 2018 10:29 AM > *To: *rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject: *Re: RV10-List: IO-540 hot starts > > > Dan, > > It took me awhile to develop a reliable cold and hot start technique. > > This after flying a 200 hp Mooney with the exact same mechanical fuel > > pump and same Bendix/Precision RSA fuel injection. > > What I found is that the RV fuel system has one significant issue that > > my Mooney did not. That is the rise in the fuel lines to the fuel > > selector. The boost off, mixture idle cutoff until cranked a few turns > > worked on that engine. > > When I first started flying the RV I had problems with the engine > > starting and quitting, whether cold or hot. What I found was that if I > > turned on the boost pump just before cranking, the problem of the engine > > quitting went away. For hot, I would bring in the mixture immediately, > > as I cranked, before the engine fired. I use about 1/4" of throttle for > > both hot and cold. (about what gives 1000 rpm fast idle) For cold I go > > full rich just before cranking. Never see more than 1200 rpm on either > > hot or cold start. I rarely have the engine quit after start as long as > > the boost pump is on until engine is running smoothly. > > I urge you to cease using any flooded start technique. Very hard on your > > cylinders and cam. First you get raw fuel in the cylinders that washes > > off any oil film. Then you get high rpm before any oil has splashed on > > the cam. > > One other tidbit. Consider the IO540 to be a hot start any time the > > crankcase inside the air inlets feels above ambient temperature. > > Kelly > > 140+ hrs since first flight. > > > On 5/15/2018 4:21 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > > I saw one discussion awhile ago where a poster suggested 1/2" > > throttle, no boost pump at all, mixture ICO, crank and then if it > > doesn't fire, to slowly bring mixture forward until it does. I don't > > understand how it could fire at all while the mixture is at ICO if the > > boost pump hasn't pressurized fuel in the lines beforehand, but then I'm > > the furthest thing from an engine mechanic. Could a hot start procedure > > really be just that simple? > > > > > > So I'm wondering if anyone has advice on what they do, in a stock > Lycoming system with regular Slick mags and no fuel return line. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Dan > > > --- > > > Dan Charrois > > &n====================== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 15, 2018
Subject: Re: IO-540 hot starts
It may work for you. However, manuals for Lycoming and TCM engines call for entirely different technique for hot starts. TCM injection has a fuel return circuit. It is used to purge any vapor and cool the fuel lines. In other words 8-10 seconds of fuel boost on with mixture at idle cutoff to clear the vapor and gives you cooler fuel from the tanks in the servo and spider line. In neither brand engine do you want a lot of fuel before cranking. No fuel pump and rich mixture together before cranking. Lycoming/Bendix injection has no return line and the only place you can send vapor is into the engine, creating a rich condition. Sent from my IBM-360 main frame On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:06 PM, David Saylor wrote: > I do fuel injected hot and cold starts, Lyc and Continental, all the same > way: > > Throttle and mixture full forward > Boost pump on for a good squirt. On my plane, I let the fuel pressure > build until it stops rising quickly. That takes 5-6 seconds. > Throttle barely open. On my quadrant, 1/8-1/4 inch off the idle stop > Mixture lean > Crank until it starts to sputter > Mixture gently forward > > Mag switches depend on the airframe. > > This technique gives me start-to-idle RPM right away without the high RPM > surge you hear around the ramp. > > >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: IO-540 hot starts
Date: May 16, 2018
Yes the Fuel Vaporises out of the Injector lines when it=99s hot and been sitting for a while and the Boost Pump just helps push the Fuel throug h quicker. As for the Slick Start I just think it=99s a fuel starvati on thing. Just as long as you don=99t run the pump with the mixture full rich for a long period like during a cold start. If you that it is the n way too rich for a hot start and there is a possibility of fuel sitting in the Air Cleaner box on a bottom induction system like an RV10 has. If yo u do have fuel sitting there and you get a back fire through the Induction system you will have a nice little fire to contend with! Keep Cranking as i t says in the Checklist! lol Cheers John MacCallum VH-DUU Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Kelly McMullen Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2018 1:12 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: IO-540 hot starts Boost pump does not remove any vapor in the lines, because the Bendix/Preci sion injection system is closed, with no return lines. What the boost pump does is eliminate the mechanical pump trying to suck fu el from the tanks, which may in itself create vapor. Probably will vary as to when mixture needs to go rich, depending on engine temp, OAT, etc. Not sure why the SlickStart is not doing a better job of getting the engine started. Sent from my IBM-360 main frame On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 5:56 PM, John MacCallum wrote: Hi Kelly, I reckon your right with turning the boost pump on. Especially on Hot Days when there is vapour in the system. =C2- I will modify my Hot start procedure to:- =C2- Throttle =C2=BC inch Mixture Cut off Boost pump on Crank When it fires, Mixture to Rich Then set RPM and lean for best idle. =C2- If it doesn=99t fire then try again after purging the lines with abou t 4 or 5 seconds of flow and the Mixture rich. Then repeat your procedure. =C2- Cheers, =C2- John MacCallum VH-DUU =C2- =C2- =C2- Sent from Mail for Windows 10 =C2- From: Kelly McMullen Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2018 10:29 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: IO-540 hot starts =C2- =C2- Dan, It took me awhile to develop a reliable cold and hot start technique. This after flying a 200 hp Mooney with the exact same mechanical fuel pump and same Bendix/Precision RSA fuel injection. What I found is that the RV fuel system has one significant issue that my Mooney did not. That is the rise in the fuel lines to the fuel selector. The boost off, mixture idle cutoff until cranked a few turns worked on that engine. When I first started flying the RV I had problems with the engine starting and quitting, whether cold or hot. What I found was that if I turned on the boost pump just before cranking, the problem of the engine quitting went away. For hot, I would bring in the mixture immediately, as I cranked, before the engine fired. I use about 1/4" of throttle for both hot and cold. (about what gives 1000 rpm fast idle) For cold I go full rich just before cranking. Never see more than 1200 rpm on either hot or cold start. I rarely have the engine quit after start as long as the boost pump is on until engine is running smoothly. I urge you to cease using any flooded start technique. Very hard on your cylinders and cam. First you get raw fuel in the cylinders that washes off any oil film. Then you get high rpm before any oil has splashed on the cam. One other tidbit. Consider the IO540 to be a hot start any time the crankcase inside the air inlets feels above ambient temperature. Kelly 140+ hrs since first flight. =C2- On 5/15/2018 4:21 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: =C2-=C2- I saw one discussion awhile ago where a poster suggested 1/2" throttle, no boost pump at all, mixture ICO, crank and then if it doesn't fire, to slowly bring mixture forward until it does.=C2- I don't understand how it could fire at all while the mixture is at ICO if the boost pump hasn't pressurized fuel in the lines beforehand, but then I'm the furthest thing from an engine mechanic.=C2- Could a hot start procedu re really be just that simple? > > So I'm wondering if anyone has advice on what they do, in a stock Lycomin g system with regular Slick mags and no fuel return line. > > Thanks! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois &n=====================ch & Downl oad, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Hot Start
From: Bill Hicks <bilhicks(at)swbell.net>
Date: May 16, 2018
Anyone using the Istart device and has that helped on hot start? Frustrating thing to me is lack of consistent procedure that will successfully hot start the beast. Almost 1000 hours and one procedure works for a while then have to change to get a successful hot start. Sent from my iPad ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Garmin interconnections
Date: May 16, 2018
Thank you Stein It seems that my install manual is older, and the page you indicate belongs to the most recent version. I will have to check. Thanks Carlos -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com Em nome de Stein Bruch Enviada: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 7:57 PM Para: rv10-list(at)matronics.com Assunto: RE: RV10-List: Garmin interconnections Page 27-25 of the install manual shows both the pinouts and the configuration settings (for both the G3X side and the GTX side). Cheers, Stein -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 12:55 PM Subject: RV10-List: Garmin interconnections Guys Does anyone in this magnificent group has GARMIN G3X and a Garmin Transponder already working in his plane? If yes, could you please share with me the interconnection schematics and the configuration information, to help me putting my Transponder working. Thanks Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: IFLYRV10.com
Date: May 16, 2018
I recently ordered a seat slide lever set from the folks at IFLYRV10.COM <http://iflyrv10.com/> but have not heard anything from them despite sending a direct email. They happily took my payment via PayPal, but does anyone know if they are still operating? Thanks, Marcus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: IO-540 hot starts
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: May 16, 2018
I do cold starts on my stock Lyc like this - works without fail: * Throttle and Mixture full back, Boost Pump on (it stays on until after start) * Throttle and Mixture full forward until pressure stops rising quickly - 5-6 seconds, then pull them back. A bit on the long side for cold wx, on the short side for warm wx. * Then exactly what Dave does: o Throttle barely open. On my quadrant, 1/8-1/4 inch off the idle stop o Mixture lean o Crank until it starts to sputter o Mixture gently forward * For hot starts I follow the same procedure but don't use the boost pump: o Throttle barely open. On my quadrant, 1/8-1/4 inch off the idle stop o Mixture lean o Crank until it starts to sputter (on hot starts it really sputters) o Mixture gently forward (some cylinders will misfire for 5-6 seconds but works the same way) o If I do the hot start thing and it doesn't sputter an fire, I give a 2-3 second shot of Boost pump but don't open the throttle or mixture, before cranking again. No problems once I started using this procedure. On 5/15/2018 9:06 PM, David Saylor wrote: > I do fuel injected hot and cold starts, Lyc and Continental, all the > same way: > > Throttle and mixture full forward > Boost pump on for a good squirt. On my plane, I let the fuel pressure > build until it stops rising quickly. That takes 5-6 seconds. > Throttle barely open. On my quadrant, 1/8-1/4 inch off the idle stop > Mixture lean > Crank until it starts to sputter > Mixture gently forward > > Mag switches depend on the airframe. > > This technique gives me start-to-idle RPM right away without the high > RPM surge you hear around the ramp. > > If it doesn't start right away there are often other issues. > > As you suggested, the idea is to create a rich mixture, which leans > itself to the required starting mixture as you crank. I'm not sure > I'd call it "flooded". > > A healthy priming shot gets cool, liquid fuel into the system > downstream of the spider. Up to that point all my FWF fuel lines are > fire sleeved, so hopefully they have some degree of insulation against > heat. > > If you're worried about degreasing your cylinder walls, I can say mine > are fine after 1800 hours. > > This has worked well for me on RVs, Cessnas, Bonanzas, Pipers, etc. > > Your starter may have a time limit. Stick to that. Mine is 10 > seconds, then it has to cool for 20 seconds. > > I find that a lot of times some batteries can't crank long enough to > clear out the excess fuel and get to the correct mixture. So of > course the battery has to be in good shape, strong enough to crank to > your starter time limit. 10 seconds, in my case, seems like a LONG > time, especially when it usually starts in 2-3 seconds. But if I hang > in there and let it crank away the excess fuel, I have pretty good luck. > > If it doesn't start, I usually start over from scratch. > > I think a lot of starting problems are timing related and battery > related. Make sure those things are right and the starting gets a lot > easier. > > --Dave > > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:21 PM, Dan Charrois > wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone. > > I'm wondering what procedures people are using for starting their > IO-540s, particularly hot starts. > > My setup is pretty much stock - no fuel return line, using the > AVStar fuel injection system my factory Lycoming through Vans came > with. Normal Slick magnetos (again, stock with the engine), with > the SlickSTART module. > > For normal cold starts, what seems to work reliably for me is > throttle open 1/2", boost pump on, mixture rich for a few seconds > (until pressure stabilizes), then mixture ICO, boost pump off, and > then start. As soon as the engine starts, I go full rich to > ensure it keeps going and then usually right away after, pull the > mixture back an inch or so. Pretty uneventful and usually works > without muss or fuss. > > For hot starts (which in my plane seem to be necessary even if the > engine's been off for nearly an hour), based on another discussion > I read awhile ago, I have been doing a flooded procedure: throttle > full forward, boost pump on, mixture rich for about 2 seconds then > ICO, leave the boost pump on, and start cranking. After the > engine starts (usually within 3 or 4 seconds), somehow get the > mixture forward and throttle back at the same time. But since I'm > not one of those with three hands, usually the engine surges to > relatively high rpm before I can get the throttle back (I'd tried > getting the throttle back first, but in so doing usually the > engine quits before I can get the mixture forward. Getting the > mixture forward right away after the engine fires usually means > the engine keeps running, though I'm sure it's hard on the engine > with not being able to get the throttle back right away. > > There's got to be a better way so hot starts can be reliable while > keeping initial RPM low, to reduce wear and stress on the engine > and prop, not to mention to just come off more professional :-) I > saw one discussion awhile ago where a poster suggested 1/2" > throttle, no boost pump at all, mixture ICO, crank and then if it > doesn't fire, to slowly bring mixture forward until it does. I > don't understand how it could fire at all while the mixture is at > ICO if the boost pump hasn't pressurized fuel in the lines > beforehand, but then I'm the furthest thing from an engine > mechanic. Could a hot start procedure really be just that simple? > > So I'm wondering if anyone has advice on what they do, in a stock > Lycoming system with regular Slick mags and no fuel return line. > > Thanks! > > Dan > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > > =================================== > -List" rel="noreferrer" > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List > =================================== > FORUMS - > eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com > =================================== > WIKI - > errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com > =================================== > b Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > =================================== > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: Re: IO-540 hot starts
Date: May 16, 2018
Thanks, everyone, for your tips and tricks to hot starting an IO-540. I've now got a few more techniques up my sleeve to try - though the flooded procedure I'd been using has worked, I certainly don't like it and am anxious to see how well these other techniques fair. Admittedly, I haven't tried it yet, but a few people responded with a process similar to the hot start procedure below and I can't quite figure out how it would work. If there is no boost pump to pressurize the lines while the mixture is forward at least a little for a short bit of time, how would any fuel at all get to the cylinders? Or by mixture lean, is the idea to have it lean-ish, but not at full idle cut off? Because if the mixture is at full idle cut off throughout the whole hot start procedure until the engine starts to sputter, I can't see how fuel would get to the cylinders at all to get it to start to sputter in the first place. If the intent is to lean but not full cut off, approximately how lean are people using? In any case, next time I go flying, I'm going to try a few of these techniques and see how they go. Thanks again, everyone! Dan > On 2018-May-16, at 5:41 PM, Bill Watson wrote: > > I do cold starts on my stock Lyc like this - works without fail: > Throttle and Mixture full back, Boost Pump on (it stays on until after start) > Throttle and Mixture full forward until pressure stops rising quickly - 5-6 seconds, then pull them back. A bit on the long side for cold wx, on the short side for warm wx. > Then exactly what Dave does: > Throttle barely open. On my quadrant, 1/8-1/4 inch off the idle stop > Mixture lean > Crank until it starts to sputter > Mixture gently forward > For hot starts I follow the same procedure but don't use the boost pump: > Throttle barely open. On my quadrant, 1/8-1/4 inch off the idle stop > Mixture lean > Crank until it starts to sputter (on hot starts it really sputters) > Mixture gently forward (some cylinders will misfire for 5-6 seconds but works the same way) > If I do the hot start thing and it doesn't sputter an fire, I give a 2-3 second shot of Boost pump but don't open the throttle or mixture, before cranking again. > No problems once I started using this procedure. > > On 5/15/2018 9:06 PM, David Saylor wrote: >> I do fuel injected hot and cold starts, Lyc and Continental, all the same way: >> >> Throttle and mixture full forward >> Boost pump on for a good squirt. On my plane, I let the fuel pressure build until it stops rising quickly. That takes 5-6 seconds. >> Throttle barely open. On my quadrant, 1/8-1/4 inch off the idle stop >> Mixture lean >> Crank until it starts to sputter >> Mixture gently forward >> >> Mag switches depend on the airframe. >> >> This technique gives me start-to-idle RPM right away without the high RPM surge you hear around the ramp. >> >> If it doesn't start right away there are often other issues. >> >> As you suggested, the idea is to create a rich mixture, which leans itself to the required starting mixture as you crank. I'm not sure I'd call it "flooded". >> >> A healthy priming shot gets cool, liquid fuel into the system downstream of the spider. Up to that point all my FWF fuel lines are fire sleeved, so hopefully they have some degree of insulation against heat. >> >> If you're worried about degreasing your cylinder walls, I can say mine are fine after 1800 hours. >> >> This has worked well for me on RVs, Cessnas, Bonanzas, Pipers, etc. >> >> Your starter may have a time limit. Stick to that. Mine is 10 seconds, then it has to cool for 20 seconds. >> >> I find that a lot of times some batteries can't crank long enough to clear out the excess fuel and get to the correct mixture. So of course the battery has to be in good shape, strong enough to crank to your starter time limit. 10 seconds, in my case, seems like a LONG time, especially when it usually starts in 2-3 seconds. But if I hang in there and let it crank away the excess fuel, I have pretty good luck. >> >> If it doesn't start, I usually start over from scratch. >> >> I think a lot of starting problems are timing related and battery related. Make sure those things are right and the starting gets a lot easier. >> >> --Dave >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:21 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: >> >> Hi everyone. >> >> I'm wondering what procedures people are using for starting their IO-540s, particularly hot starts. >> >> My setup is pretty much stock - no fuel return line, using the AVStar fuel injection system my factory Lycoming through Vans came with. Normal Slick magnetos (again, stock with the engine), with the SlickSTART module. >> >> For normal cold starts, what seems to work reliably for me is throttle open 1/2", boost pump on, mixture rich for a few seconds (until pressure stabilizes), then mixture ICO, boost pump off, and then start. As soon as the engine starts, I go full rich to ensure it keeps going and then usually right away after, pull the mixture back an inch or so. Pretty uneventful and usually works without muss or fuss. >> >> For hot starts (which in my plane seem to be necessary even if the engine's been off for nearly an hour), based on another discussion I read awhile ago, I have been doing a flooded procedure: throttle full forward, boost pump on, mixture rich for about 2 seconds then ICO, leave the boost pump on, and start cranking. After the engine starts (usually within 3 or 4 seconds), somehow get the mixture forward and throttle back at the same time. But since I'm not one of those with three hands, usually the engine surges to relatively high rpm before I can get the throttle back (I'd tried getting the throttle back first, but in so doing usually the engine quits before I can get the mixture forward. Getting the mixture forward right away after the engine fires usually means the engine keeps running, though I'm sure it's hard on the engine with not being able to get the throttle back right away. >> >> There's got to be a better way so hot starts can be reliable while keeping initial RPM low, to reduce wear and stress on the engine and prop, not to mention to just come off more professional :-) I saw one discussion awhile ago where a poster suggested 1/2" throttle, no boost pump at all, mixture ICO, crank and then if it doesn't fire, to slowly bring mixture forward until it does. I don't understand how it could fire at all while the mixture is at ICO if the boost pump hasn't pressurized fuel in the lines beforehand, but then I'm the furthest thing from an engine mechanic. Could a hot start procedure really be just that simple? >> >> So I'm wondering if anyone has advice on what they do, in a stock Lycoming system with regular Slick mags and no fuel return line. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Dan >> --- >> Dan Charrois >> President, Syzygy Research & Technology >> Phone: 780-961-2213 >> >> >> =================================== >> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >> =================================== >> FORUMS - >> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com >> =================================== >> WIKI - >> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com >> =================================== >> b Site - >> -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> =================================== >> >> >> >> > > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com > > --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: IO-540 hot starts
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: May 17, 2018
In my case 'lean' means idle cutoff. I don't know the answer to how the line is pressurized but on a hotstart there seems to be enough vapor or boiling fuel downstream of the pump to get the thing to sputter before feeding it some cool fuel. And if it doesn't sputter with the mixture in idle cutoff. I stop cranking, turn on the fuel pump for 2-3-4-5 seconds with everything closed, turn it off, and do it again. It always works for me whether returning to the field and gassing up before returning to the hangar, or when taxiing from the hangar for fuel before departure. I can't imaging feeding it full fuel for a cold or hot start. For my cold start I very smoothly feed it fuel to just past the point where I set the mixture of a lean taxi. Starts as smoothly as can be. For a hot start I have to be a bit more aggressive with the fuel because like you said, "how would any fuel at all get to the cylinders?". But also have to be ready to pull it back quick when it catches or its goodbye fuel farm. Bill "my first fuel injected engine so I don't have clue as to what I'm doing" Watson On 5/17/2018 1:13 AM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > Thanks, everyone, for your tips and tricks to hot starting an IO-540. I've now got a few more techniques up my sleeve to try - though the flooded procedure I'd been using has worked, I certainly don't like it and am anxious to see how well these other techniques fair. > > Admittedly, I haven't tried it yet, but a few people responded with a process similar to the hot start procedure below and I can't quite figure out how it would work. If there is no boost pump to pressurize the lines while the mixture is forward at least a little for a short bit of time, how would any fuel at all get to the cylinders? Or by mixture lean, is the idea to have it lean-ish, but not at full idle cut off? Because if the mixture is at full idle cut off throughout the whole hot start procedure until the engine starts to sputter, I can't see how fuel would get to the cylinders at all to get it to start to sputter in the first place. If the intent is to lean but not full cut off, approximately how lean are people using? > > In any case, next time I go flying, I'm going to try a few of these techniques and see how they go. Thanks again, everyone! > > Dan > >> On 2018-May-16, at 5:41 PM, Bill Watson wrote: >> >> I do cold starts on my stock Lyc like this - works without fail: >> Throttle and Mixture full back, Boost Pump on (it stays on until after start) >> Throttle and Mixture full forward until pressure stops rising quickly - 5-6 seconds, then pull them back. A bit on the long side for cold wx, on the short side for warm wx. >> Then exactly what Dave does: >> Throttle barely open. On my quadrant, 1/8-1/4 inch off the idle stop >> Mixture lean >> Crank until it starts to sputter >> Mixture gently forward >> For hot starts I follow the same procedure but don't use the boost pump: >> Throttle barely open. On my quadrant, 1/8-1/4 inch off the idle stop >> Mixture lean >> Crank until it starts to sputter (on hot starts it really sputters) >> Mixture gently forward (some cylinders will misfire for 5-6 seconds but works the same way) >> If I do the hot start thing and it doesn't sputter an fire, I give a 2-3 second shot of Boost pump but don't open the throttle or mixture, before cranking again. >> No problems once I started using this procedure. >> >> On 5/15/2018 9:06 PM, David Saylor wrote: >>> I do fuel injected hot and cold starts, Lyc and Continental, all the same way: >>> >>> Throttle and mixture full forward >>> Boost pump on for a good squirt. On my plane, I let the fuel pressure build until it stops rising quickly. That takes 5-6 seconds. >>> Throttle barely open. On my quadrant, 1/8-1/4 inch off the idle stop >>> Mixture lean >>> Crank until it starts to sputter >>> Mixture gently forward >>> >>> Mag switches depend on the airframe. >>> >>> This technique gives me start-to-idle RPM right away without the high RPM surge you hear around the ramp. >>> >>> If it doesn't start right away there are often other issues. >>> >>> As you suggested, the idea is to create a rich mixture, which leans itself to the required starting mixture as you crank. I'm not sure I'd call it "flooded". >>> >>> A healthy priming shot gets cool, liquid fuel into the system downstream of the spider. Up to that point all my FWF fuel lines are fire sleeved, so hopefully they have some degree of insulation against heat. >>> >>> If you're worried about degreasing your cylinder walls, I can say mine are fine after 1800 hours. >>> >>> This has worked well for me on RVs, Cessnas, Bonanzas, Pipers, etc. >>> >>> Your starter may have a time limit. Stick to that. Mine is 10 seconds, then it has to cool for 20 seconds. >>> >>> I find that a lot of times some batteries can't crank long enough to clear out the excess fuel and get to the correct mixture. So of course the battery has to be in good shape, strong enough to crank to your starter time limit. 10 seconds, in my case, seems like a LONG time, especially when it usually starts in 2-3 seconds. But if I hang in there and let it crank away the excess fuel, I have pretty good luck. >>> >>> If it doesn't start, I usually start over from scratch. >>> >>> I think a lot of starting problems are timing related and battery related. Make sure those things are right and the starting gets a lot easier. >>> >>> --Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:21 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone. >>> >>> I'm wondering what procedures people are using for starting their IO-540s, particularly hot starts. >>> >>> My setup is pretty much stock - no fuel return line, using the AVStar fuel injection system my factory Lycoming through Vans came with. Normal Slick magnetos (again, stock with the engine), with the SlickSTART module. >>> >>> For normal cold starts, what seems to work reliably for me is throttle open 1/2", boost pump on, mixture rich for a few seconds (until pressure stabilizes), then mixture ICO, boost pump off, and then start. As soon as the engine starts, I go full rich to ensure it keeps going and then usually right away after, pull the mixture back an inch or so. Pretty uneventful and usually works without muss or fuss. >>> >>> For hot starts (which in my plane seem to be necessary even if the engine's been off for nearly an hour), based on another discussion I read awhile ago, I have been doing a flooded procedure: throttle full forward, boost pump on, mixture rich for about 2 seconds then ICO, leave the boost pump on, and start cranking. After the engine starts (usually within 3 or 4 seconds), somehow get the mixture forward and throttle back at the same time. But since I'm not one of those with three hands, usually the engine surges to relatively high rpm before I can get the throttle back (I'd tried getting the throttle back first, but in so doing usually the engine quits before I can get the mixture forward. Getting the mixture forward right away after the engine fires usually means the engine keeps running, though I'm sure it's hard on the engine with not being able to get the throttle back right away. >>> >>> There's got to be a better way so hot starts can be reliable while keeping initial RPM low, to reduce wear and stress on the engine and prop, not to mention to just come off more professional :-) I saw one discussion awhile ago where a poster suggested 1/2" throttle, no boost pump at all, mixture ICO, crank and then if it doesn't fire, to slowly bring mixture forward until it does. I don't understand how it could fire at all while the mixture is at ICO if the boost pump hasn't pressurized fuel in the lines beforehand, but then I'm the furthest thing from an engine mechanic. Could a hot start procedure really be just that simple? >>> >>> So I'm wondering if anyone has advice on what they do, in a stock Lycoming system with regular Slick mags and no fuel return line. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Dan >>> --- >>> Dan Charrois >>> President, Syzygy Research & Technology >>> Phone: 780-961-2213 >>> >>> >>> =================================== >>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >>> =================================== >>> FORUMS - >>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com >>> =================================== >>> WIKI - >>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com >>> =================================== >>> b Site - >>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >>> =================================== >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> www.avast.com >> >> > > > --- > Dan Charrois > President, Syzygy Research & Technology > Phone: 780-961-2213 > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Date: May 17, 2018
Subject: RV10 cost per hour
Guys, A friend wants to rent my rv10 What do you think a cost per hour is reasonable ? Dry vs wet Regards, Alan Ps He is already on my insurance /cf I/ ATP Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 17, 2018
From: Dan Masys <dmasys(at)u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: IO-540 hot starts
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:21 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: > > I'm wondering what procedures people are using for starting their IO-540s, particularly > hot starts. > > My setup is pretty much stock - no fuel return line, using the AVStar fuel injection > system my factory Lycoming through Vans came with. Normal Slick magnetos > (again, stock with the engine), with the SlickSTART module. One thing to be sure to do is to check that your SlickSTART is correctly wired and producing its sustained spark beginning at TDC. Like timing the engine, pull one plug from each cylinder. Attach lead to #1 cylinder, set to some few degrees before TDC, turn on the ignition, and pull the prop slowly through TDC. If the SlickSTART is functioning correctly you will see a series of bright sparks beginning at TDC. The SlickSTART wiring diagram is a bit ambiguous and it is easy to get wrong (ask me how I know ;-) ). But to totally solve the hot start problem on my factory configuration IO-540 I replaced the right mag with a SureFly electronic ignition and took the jumper off the starter switch that grounds the right mag at startup. So both SureFly and SlickStart fire at TDC on startup. Works like a charm, cold or hot. -Dan Masys RV-10 N104LD 1100 hrs. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: IO-540 hot starts
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: May 17, 2018
What many fail to appreciate is that the flow divider on top of the engine has a fuel cutoff valve, which stops fuel flow to the injectors at around 4-5psi. So whether it is hot or cold start all of the fuel system except the injector lines from the flow divider is still mostly full of fuel. So there is plenty of fuel for the engine to start and run for maybe 5-10 seconds. Whether it continues to run depends on the mechanical and boost pump delivering the 3-4 gph at 15 psi or greater that the engine requires at low power to keep running. The flow divider needs a consistent fuel pressure above 5 psi to deliver fuel to the injectors and have them atomize that fuel. As for the initial ignition, the engine requires a fairly rich mixture in each cylinder to fire enough cylinders to get a start. When hot, between the fuel that may remain in the injector lines boiling into the intake manifold and other factors you probably do not have a consistent mixture for the first 3-4 revolutions of the engine. It may be good and fire or it may not. Complicating all of the above is the relatively weak spark that a magneto delivers at cranking speeds. Electronic ignitions or the Slick Start booster solve that issue by delivering a strong spark of longer duration during cranking. A strong spark will fire mixtures that are not ideal. Which is why Dan M and I question whether Dan C's Slick Start is functioning correctly. Kelly On 5/17/2018 3:15 AM, Bill Watson wrote: > > In my case 'lean' means idle cutoff. I don't know the answer to how the > line is pressurized but on a hotstart there seems to be enough vapor or > boiling fuel downstream of the pump to get the thing to sputter before > feeding it some cool fuel. > > And if it doesn't sputter with the mixture in idle cutoff. I stop > cranking, turn on the fuel pump for 2-3-4-5 seconds with everything > closed, turn it off, and do it again. It always works for me whether > returning to the field and gassing up before returning to the hangar, > or when taxiing from the hangar for fuel before departure. > > I can't imaging feeding it full fuel for a cold or hot start. For my > cold start I very smoothly feed it fuel to just past the point where I > set the mixture of a lean taxi. Starts as smoothly as can be. For a > hot start I have to be a bit more aggressive with the fuel because like > you said, "how would any fuel at all get to the cylinders?". But also > have to be ready to pull it back quick when it catches or its goodbye > fuel farm. > > Bill "my first fuel injected engine so I don't have clue as to what I'm > doing" Watson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: May 17, 2018
Subject: Re: IO-540 hot starts
I think its because when you shut down the fuel boils out of the injector lines and the fumes and fuel stay at a somewhat high level In the cylinder for a long period of time. So it fires even without priming. It will run tough until new fuel enters the lines though. Tim > On May 17, 2018, at 5:15 AM, Bill Watson wrote: > > > In my case 'lean' means idle cutoff. I don't know the answer to how the line is pressurized but on a hotstart there seems to be enough vapor or boiling fuel downstream of the pump to get the thing to sputter before feeding it some cool fuel. > > And if it doesn't sputter with the mixture in idle cutoff. I stop cranking, turn on the fuel pump for 2-3-4-5 seconds with everything closed, turn it off, and do it again. It always works for me whether returning to the field and gassing up before returning to the hangar, or when taxiing from the hangar for fuel before departure. > > I can't imaging feeding it full fuel for a cold or hot start. For my cold start I very smoothly feed it fuel to just past the point where I set the mixture of a lean taxi. Starts as smoothly as can be. For a hot start I have to be a bit more aggressive with the fuel because like you said, "how would any fuel at all get to the cylinders?". But also have to be ready to pull it back quick when it catches or its goodbye fuel farm. > > Bill "my first fuel injected engine so I don't have clue as to what I'm doing" Watson > >> On 5/17/2018 1:13 AM, Dan Charrois wrote: >> >> Thanks, everyone, for your tips and tricks to hot starting an IO-540. I've now got a few more techniques up my sleeve to try - though the flooded procedure I'd been using has worked, I certainly don't like it and am anxious to see how well these other techniques fair. >> >> Admittedly, I haven't tried it yet, but a few people responded with a process similar to the hot start procedure below and I can't quite figure out how it would work. If there is no boost pump to pressurize the lines while the mixture is forward at least a little for a short bit of time, how would any fuel at all get to the cylinders? Or by mixture lean, is the idea to have it lean-ish, but not at full idle cut off? Because if the mixture is at full idle cut off throughout the whole hot start procedure until the engine starts to sputter, I can't see how fuel would get to the cylinders at all to get it to start to sputter in the first place. If the intent is to lean but not full cut off, approximately how lean are people using? >> >> In any case, next time I go flying, I'm going to try a few of these techniques and see how they go. Thanks again, everyone! >> >> Dan >> >>> On 2018-May-16, at 5:41 PM, Bill Watson wrote: >>> >>> I do cold starts on my stock Lyc like this - works without fail: >>> Throttle and Mixture full back, Boost Pump on (it stays on until after start) >>> Throttle and Mixture full forward until pressure stops rising quickly - 5-6 seconds, then pull them back. A bit on the long side for cold wx, on the short side for warm wx. >>> Then exactly what Dave does: >>> Throttle barely open. On my quadrant, 1/8-1/4 inch off the idle stop >>> Mixture lean >>> Crank until it starts to sputter >>> Mixture gently forward >>> For hot starts I follow the same procedure but don't use the boost pump: >>> Throttle barely open. On my quadrant, 1/8-1/4 inch off the idle stop >>> Mixture lean >>> Crank until it starts to sputter (on hot starts it really sputters) >>> Mixture gently forward (some cylinders will misfire for 5-6 seconds but works the same way) >>> If I do the hot start thing and it doesn't sputter an fire, I give a 2-3 second shot of Boost pump but don't open the throttle or mixture, before cranking again. >>> No problems once I started using this procedure. >>> >>>> On 5/15/2018 9:06 PM, David Saylor wrote: >>>> I do fuel injected hot and cold starts, Lyc and Continental, all the same way: >>>> >>>> Throttle and mixture full forward >>>> Boost pump on for a good squirt. On my plane, I let the fuel pressure build until it stops rising quickly. That takes 5-6 seconds. >>>> Throttle barely open. On my quadrant, 1/8-1/4 inch off the idle stop >>>> Mixture lean >>>> Crank until it starts to sputter >>>> Mixture gently forward >>>> >>>> Mag switches depend on the airframe. >>>> >>>> This technique gives me start-to-idle RPM right away without the high RPM surge you hear around the ramp. >>>> >>>> If it doesn't start right away there are often other issues. >>>> >>>> As you suggested, the idea is to create a rich mixture, which leans itself to the required starting mixture as you crank. I'm not sure I'd call it "flooded". >>>> >>>> A healthy priming shot gets cool, liquid fuel into the system downstream of the spider. Up to that point all my FWF fuel lines are fire sleeved, so hopefully they have some degree of insulation against heat. >>>> >>>> If you're worried about degreasing your cylinder walls, I can say mine are fine after 1800 hours. >>>> >>>> This has worked well for me on RVs, Cessnas, Bonanzas, Pipers, etc. >>>> >>>> Your starter may have a time limit. Stick to that. Mine is 10 seconds, then it has to cool for 20 seconds. >>>> >>>> I find that a lot of times some batteries can't crank long enough to clear out the excess fuel and get to the correct mixture. So of course the battery has to be in good shape, strong enough to crank to your starter time limit. 10 seconds, in my case, seems like a LONG time, especially when it usually starts in 2-3 seconds. But if I hang in there and let it crank away the excess fuel, I have pretty good luck. >>>> >>>> If it doesn't start, I usually start over from scratch. >>>> >>>> I think a lot of starting problems are timing related and battery related. Make sure those things are right and the starting gets a lot easier. >>>> >>>> --Dave >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:21 PM, Dan Charrois wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi everyone. >>>> >>>> I'm wondering what procedures people are using for starting their IO-540s, particularly hot starts. >>>> >>>> My setup is pretty much stock - no fuel return line, using the AVStar fuel injection system my factory Lycoming through Vans came with. Normal Slick magnetos (again, stock with the engine), with the SlickSTART module. >>>> >>>> For normal cold starts, what seems to work reliably for me is throttle open 1/2", boost pump on, mixture rich for a few seconds (until pressure stabilizes), then mixture ICO, boost pump off, and then start. As soon as the engine starts, I go full rich to ensure it keeps going and then usually right away after, pull the mixture back an inch or so. Pretty uneventful and usually works without muss or fuss. >>>> >>>> For hot starts (which in my plane seem to be necessary even if the engine's been off for nearly an hour), based on another discussion I read awhile ago, I have been doing a flooded procedure: throttle full forward, boost pump on, mixture rich for about 2 seconds then ICO, leave the boost pump on, and start cranking. After the engine starts (usually within 3 or 4 seconds), somehow get the mixture forward and throttle back at the same time. But since I'm not one of those with three hands, usually the engine surges to relatively high rpm before I can get the throttle back (I'd tried getting the throttle back first, but in so doing usually the engine quits before I can get the mixture forward. Getting the mixture forward right away after the engine fires usually means the engine keeps running, though I'm sure it's hard on the engine with not being able to get the throttle back right away. >>>> >>>> There's got to be a better way so hot starts can be reliable while keeping initial RPM low, to reduce wear and stress on the engine and prop, not to mention to just come off more professional :-) I saw one discussion awhile ago where a poster suggested 1/2" throttle, no boost pump at all, mixture ICO, crank and then if it doesn't fire, to slowly bring mixture forward until it does. I don't understand how it could fire at all while the mixture is at ICO if the boost pump hasn't pressurized fuel in the lines beforehand, but then I'm the furthest thing from an engine mechanic. Could a hot start procedure really be just that simple? >>>> >>>> So I'm wondering if anyone has advice on what they do, in a stock Lycoming system with regular Slick mags and no fuel return line. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> --- >>>> Dan Charrois >>>> President, Syzygy Research & Technology >>>> Phone: 780-961-2213 >>>> >>>> >>>> =================================== >>>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List >>>> =================================== >>>> FORUMS - >>>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com >>>> =================================== >>>> WIKI - >>>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com >>>> =================================== >>>> b Site - >>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >>>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >>>> =================================== >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> www.avast.com >>> >>> >> >> >> --- >> Dan Charrois >> President, Syzygy Research & Technology >> Phone: 780-961-2213 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 17, 2018
Subject: Re: IO-540 hot starts
I meant to explain, and forgot, that the flow divider valve is there to stop fuel flow to the injectors when you go to idle cutoff, so that there is little fuel in the injector lines when the engine is shut down. It has the side effect of keeping enough fuel in the fuel servo and line to the flow divider to initially fire the engine, once enough pressure is introduced at the fuel servo and the mixture is moved off cut-off. The firing that may occur with the engine at cut-off is from residual fuel in the intake manifold and/or priming. It takes only a few revolutions for the engine to purge that fuel if the mixture is left at idle cut-off. Sent from my IBM-360 main frame On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > What many fail to appreciate is that the flow divider on top of the engine > has a fuel cutoff valve, which stops fuel flow to the injectors at around > 4-5psi. So whether it is hot or cold start all of the fuel system except > the injector lines from the flow divider is still mostly full of fuel. So > there is plenty of fuel for the engine to start and run for maybe 5-10 > seconds. Whether it continues to run depends on the mechanical and boost > pump delivering the 3-4 gph at 15 psi or greater that the engine requires > at low power to keep running. The flow divider needs a consistent fuel > pressure above 5 psi to deliver fuel to the injectors and have them atomize > that fuel. > As for the initial ignition, the engine requires a fairly rich mixture in > each cylinder to fire enough cylinders to get a start. When hot, between > the fuel that may remain in the injector lines boiling into the intake > manifold and other factors you probably do not have a consistent mixture > for the first 3-4 revolutions of the engine. It may be good and fire or it > may not. Complicating all of the above is the relatively weak spark that a > magneto delivers at cranking speeds. Electronic ignitions or the Slick > Start booster solve that issue by delivering a strong spark of longer > duration during cranking. A strong spark will fire mixtures that are not > ideal. Which is why Dan M and I question whether Dan C's Slick Start is > functioning correctly. > Kelly > > On 5/17/2018 3:15 AM, Bill Watson wrote: > >> >> In my case 'lean' means idle cutoff. I don't know the answer to how the >> line is pressurized but on a hotstart there seems to be enough vapor or >> boiling fuel downstream of the pump to get the thing to sputter before >> feeding it some cool fuel. >> >> > ===================================================== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Date: May 17, 2018
Subject: Re: IO-540 hot starts
My hot start technique Mixture idle cut off Boost off Throttle 1/4 inch As engine fires I rapidly increase the mixture If you wait too long to increase the mixture the engine quits and then I ha ve to reprime Alan Sent from my iPhone > On May 17, 2018, at 9:28 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > I meant to explain, and forgot, that the flow divider valve is there to st op fuel flow to the injectors when you go to idle cutoff, so that there is l ittle fuel in the injector lines when the engine is shut down. It has the si de effect of keeping enough fuel in the fuel servo and line to the flow divi der to initially fire the engine, once enough pressure is introduced at the f uel servo and the mixture is moved off cut-off. The firing that may occur w ith the engine at cut-off is from residual fuel in the intake manifold and/o r priming. It takes only a few revolutions for the engine to purge that fuel if the mixture is left at idle cut-off. > > Sent from my IBM-360 main frame > >> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Kelly McMullen wro te: >> >> What many fail to appreciate is that the flow divider on top of the engin e has a fuel cutoff valve, which stops fuel flow to the injectors at around 4 -5psi. So whether it is hot or cold start all of the fuel system except the i njector lines from the flow divider is still mostly full of fuel. So there i s plenty of fuel for the engine to start and run for maybe 5-10 seconds. Whe ther it continues to run depends on the mechanical and boost pump delivering the 3-4 gph at 15 psi or greater that the engine requires at low power to k eep running. The flow divider needs a consistent fuel pressure above 5 psi t o deliver fuel to the injectors and have them atomize that fuel. >> As for the initial ignition, the engine requires a fairly rich mixture in each cylinder to fire enough cylinders to get a start. When hot, between th e fuel that may remain in the injector lines boiling into the intake manifol d and other factors you probably do not have a consistent mixture for the fi rst 3-4 revolutions of the engine. It may be good and fire or it may not. Co mplicating all of the above is the relatively weak spark that a magneto deli vers at cranking speeds. Electronic ignitions or the Slick Start booster sol ve that issue by delivering a strong spark of longer duration during crankin g. A strong spark will fire mixtures that are not ideal. Which is why Dan M a nd I question whether Dan C's Slick Start is functioning correctly. >> Kelly >> >>> On 5/17/2018 3:15 AM, Bill Watson wrote: >>> >>> In my case 'lean' means idle cutoff. I don't know the answer to how the line is pressurized but on a hotstart there seems to be enough vapor or boi ling fuel downstream of the pump to get the thing to sputter before feeding i t some cool fuel. >>> >> >> ========================= === >> >> >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: May 17, 2018
Subject: Re: RV10 cost per hour
Alan, This is a delicate topic since we cannot use the airplanes for hire which includes both charging someone more than expenses for a flight or renting the airplane. Others will weigh in, but at most it seems you could charge an easily justifiable rate that would only cover reasonable expenses. If hes already on the insurance and this is something you want to make available to him long term, you might want to consider bringing him on as a partner to alleviate all of the other issues. Im curious how this turns out for you as I also know someone who has wanted to buy into my airplane but Ive held off for a few reasons. Hopefully someone will offer another solution. Marcus > On May 17, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: > > > > Guys, > A friend wants to rent my rv10 > What do you think a cost per hour is reasonable ? > Dry vs wet > Regards, > Alan > Ps > He is already on my insurance /cf I/ > ATP > > Sent from my iPhone > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Date: May 17, 2018
Subject: Re: RV10 cost per hour
Yes I just want to cover expenses Alan Sent from my iPhone > On May 17, 2018, at 10:12 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > > > Alan, > This is a delicate topic since we cannot use the airplanes for hire which includes both charging someone more than expenses for a flight or renting the airplane. Others will weigh in, but at most it seems you could charge an easily justifiable rate that would only cover reasonable expenses. > > If hes already on the insurance and this is something you want to make available to him long term, you might want to consider bringing him on as a partner to alleviate all of the other issues. > > Im curious how this turns out for you as I also know someone who has wanted to buy into my airplane but Ive held off for a few reasons. Hopefully someone will offer another solution. > > Marcus > >> On May 17, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: >> >> >> >> Guys, >> A friend wants to rent my rv10 >> What do you think a cost per hour is reasonable ? >> Dry vs wet >> Regards, >> Alan >> Ps >> He is already on my insurance /cf I/ >> ATP >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Marcus Cooper <cooprv7(at)yahoo.com>
Date: May 17, 2018
Subject: Re: RV10 cost per hour
I would recommend taking all of your expenses annually: insurance, hangar, oil, maintenance, etc, and divide by annual hours flown. I wouldnt think anyone could fault that logic. It would be difficult to rely on anyone elses numbers as there are too many personal variables. Marcus. > On May 17, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: > > > Yes > I just want to cover expenses > Alan > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On May 17, 2018, at 10:12 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: >> >> >> Alan, >> This is a delicate topic since we cannot use the airplanes for hire which includes both charging someone more than expenses for a flight or renting the airplane. Others will weigh in, but at most it seems you could charge an easily justifiable rate that would only cover reasonable expenses. >> >> If hes already on the insurance and this is something you want to make available to him long term, you might want to consider bringing him on as a partner to alleviate all of the other issues. >> >> Im curious how this turns out for you as I also know someone who has wanted to buy into my airplane but Ive held off for a few reasons. Hopefully someone will offer another solution. >> >> Marcus >> >>> On May 17, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Guys, >>> A friend wants to rent my rv10 >>> What do you think a cost per hour is reasonable ? >>> Dry vs wet >>> Regards, >>> Alan >>> Ps >>> He is already on my insurance /cf I/ >>> ATP >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RV10 cost per hour
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: May 17, 2018
Personally, I would take it a step further. It would be VERY easy to run afoul with the FAA and have a very bad experience, in renting him the plane. I would tell him he needs to give you $5000 to get an ownership stake in the airplane, and have him sign something that you prepare that gives him a small percentage of ownership in it. At least then you have some written proof and a copy of the bank deposit to show that he is indeed part owner. There is still the issue that with the FAA and registration you would not have him listed as an owner, but you would at least have SOME paper trail. The real way to do it I think, but I do not have any knowledge of the process, is to create an LLC to be the owner and then sell the shares to the partners. Once you are partners in the plane, expense sharing won't cause any issues. Tim On 05/17/2018 10:26 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: > > I would recommend taking all of your expenses annually: insurance, hangar, oil, maintenance, etc, and divide by annual hours flown. I wouldnt think anyone could fault that logic. It would be difficult to rely on anyone elses numbers as there are too many personal variables. > > Marcus. > >> On May 17, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: >> >> >> Yes >> I just want to cover expenses >> Alan >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On May 17, 2018, at 10:12 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: >>> >>> >>> Alan, >>> This is a delicate topic since we cannot use the airplanes for hire which includes both charging someone more than expenses for a flight or renting the airplane. Others will weigh in, but at most it seems you could charge an easily justifiable rate that would only cover reasonable expenses. >>> >>> If hes already on the insurance and this is something you want to make available to him long term, you might want to consider bringing him on as a partner to alleviate all of the other issues. >>> >>> Im curious how this turns out for you as I also know someone who has wanted to buy into my airplane but Ive held off for a few reasons. Hopefully someone will offer another solution. >>> >>> Marcus >>> >>>> On May 17, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Guys, >>>> A friend wants to rent my rv10 >>>> What do you think a cost per hour is reasonable ? >>>> Dry vs wet >>>> Regards, >>>> Alan >>>> Ps >>>> He is already on my insurance /cf I/ >>>> ATP >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Date: May 17, 2018
Subject: Re: RV10 cost per hour
Tim, Thanks for the advice Will tell me I cant rent it Alan Sent from my iPhone > On May 17, 2018, at 2:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > Personally, I would take it a step further. > It would be VERY easy to run afoul with the FAA and have a very > bad experience, in renting him the plane. I would tell him he > needs to give you $5000 to get an ownership stake in the airplane, > and have him sign something that you prepare that gives him > a small percentage of ownership in it. At least then you have > some written proof and a copy of the bank deposit to show that > he is indeed part owner. There is still the issue that with > the FAA and registration you would not have him listed as an > owner, but you would at least have SOME paper trail. The real > way to do it I think, but I do not have any knowledge of the > process, is to create an LLC to be the owner and then sell the > shares to the partners. Once you are partners in the plane, > expense sharing won't cause any issues. > Tim > > > >> On 05/17/2018 10:26 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: >> I would recommend taking all of your expenses annually: insurance, hangar, oil, maintenance, etc, and divide by annual hours flown. I wouldnt think anyone could fault that logic. It would be difficult to rely on anyone elses numbers as there are too many personal variables. >> Marcus. >>> On May 17, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yes >>> I just want to cover expenses >>> Alan >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On May 17, 2018, at 10:12 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Alan, >>>> This is a delicate topic since we cannot use the airplanes for hire which includes both charging someone more than expenses for a flight or renting the airplane. Others will weigh in, but at most it seems you could charge an easily justifiable rate that would only cover reasonable expenses. >>>> >>>> If hes already on the insurance and this is something you want to make available to him long term, you might want to consider bringing him on as a partner to alleviate all of the other issues. >>>> >>>> Im curious how this turns out for you as I also know someone who has wanted to buy into my airplane but Ive held off for a few reasons. Hopefully someone will offer another solution. >>>> >>>> Marcus >>>> >>>>> On May 17, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Guys, >>>>> A friend wants to rent my rv10 >>>>> What do you think a cost per hour is reasonable ? >>>>> Dry vs wet >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Alan >>>>> Ps >>>>> He is already on my insurance /cf I/ >>>>> ATP >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: RV10 cost per hour
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 17, 2018
Tim is right on here. An EAB airplane may not be used for compensation or hire. It doesnt say profit; you may not receive anything from others for the use of your airplane. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480211#480211 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dan Charrois <dan(at)syz.com>
Subject: Re: IO-540 hot starts
Date: May 17, 2018
I didn't realize that the flow divider had a fuel cutoff valve and there was still some fuel in the lines after shutting down the engine by bringing the mixture to idle cutoff. I'll definitely be modifying my hot start technique next time I go flying to the suggestions here and see how it goes. Back when I installed the Slick Start, I did test and it seemed to be working OK, but that was a while ago and things may have changed. I'm only a few hours away from doing my next 50 hour inspection - I'll add checking the Slick Start to my list of things to look at. Thanks again, everyone! Dan > On 2018-May-17, at 7:10 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > What many fail to appreciate is that the flow divider on top of the engine has a fuel cutoff valve, which stops fuel flow to the injectors at around 4-5psi. So whether it is hot or cold start all of the fuel system except the injector lines from the flow divider is still mostly full of fuel. So there is plenty of fuel for the engine to start and run for maybe 5-10 seconds. Whether it continues to run depends on the mechanical and boost pump delivering the 3-4 gph at 15 psi or greater that the engine requires at low power to keep running. The flow divider needs a consistent fuel pressure above 5 psi to deliver fuel to the injectors and have them atomize that fuel. > As for the initial ignition, the engine requires a fairly rich mixture in each cylinder to fire enough cylinders to get a start. When hot, between the fuel that may remain in the injector lines boiling into the intake manifold and other factors you probably do not have a consistent mixture for the first 3-4 revolutions of the engine. It may be good and fire or it may not. Complicating all of the above is the relatively weak spark that a magneto delivers at cranking speeds. Electronic ignitions or the Slick Start booster solve that issue by delivering a strong spark of longer duration during cranking. A strong spark will fire mixtures that are not ideal. Which is why Dan M and I question whether Dan C's Slick Start is functioning correctly. > Kelly > > On 5/17/2018 3:15 AM, Bill Watson wrote: >> In my case 'lean' means idle cutoff. I don't know the answer to how the line is pressurized but on a hotstart there seems to be enough vapor or boiling fuel downstream of the pump to get the thing to sputter before feeding it some cool fuel. >> And if it doesn't sputter with the mixture in idle cutoff. I stop cranking, turn on the fuel pump for 2-3-4-5 seconds with everything closed, turn it off, and do it again. It always works for me whether returning to the field and gassing up before returning to the hangar, or when taxiing from the hangar for fuel before departure. >> I can't imaging feeding it full fuel for a cold or hot start. For my cold start I very smoothly feed it fuel to just past the point where I set the mixture of a lean taxi. Starts as smoothly as can be. For a hot start I have to be a bit more aggressive with the fuel because like you said, "how would any fuel at all get to the cylinders?". But also have to be ready to pull it back quick when it catches or its goodbye fuel farm. >> Bill "my first fuel injected engine so I don't have clue as to what I'm doing" Watson --- Dan Charrois President, Syzygy Research & Technology Phone: 780-961-2213 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Kudos to Oregon Aero
From: "tshort" <tmshort(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 19, 2018
I'm interested as well. That looks really nice. Does the stitched front wrap around the aluminum edge? How is it attached? It looks a bit shiny on top ... is there any glare on the windshield? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480235#480235 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rob Kermanj <flysrv10(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kudos to Oregon Aero
Date: May 19, 2018
I have attached a few pictures that I hope will help. Yes the front wraps below the metal edge. See my finger in the picture. It is held by good quality velcro. However, the only place that need attachment, is the front. Rest of it is held by the windshield and the skin. > On May 19, 2018, at 4:58 PM, tshort wrote: > > > I'm interested as well. That looks really nice. > Does the stitched front wrap around the aluminum edge? How is it attached? > It looks a bit shiny on top ... is there any glare on the windshield? > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480235#480235 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Jennings <tjennings07(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 20, 2018
Subject: Dents in VS Skin from flush set..... ARGGGGGHHHHHH
Alright, I was making great progress and then used my non dominant hand to rivet the second side of the VS skin and managed to make about 6 dents in the skin along the front spar before I realized the poor form and consequent mistake. They are absolutely noticeable. In a "done is better than perfect" moment I kept riveting once I was cooled off about the mistake so that I would have a finished part. Now I am looking for a filler that I can use to make the dents go away before I drill out all the rivets and try a second time with a NEW skin. Is there anyone out there or "has a friend" who has made a mistake like this before and lived to tell the tale while using a filler that has stood the test of time? I have lots of experience with Bondo from my motorcycle painting days and know it is NOT up to this task. Flex/expand/contract/vibrate, all things that would separate brittle Bondo from the skin making it unsuitable for this task. I am hopeful there is a better product out there for aviation before I crack out the drill and try my hand at a second skin? Thanks, Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lester <brian.lester(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 20, 2018
Subject: Re: Dents in VS Skin from flush set..... ARGGGGGHHHHHH
Leave it be, at least for now. At least that was my decision when I had some =9Cimperfections =9D. Don=99t worry about fixing dents if it=99s just a surface imperfection. Build on an d learn from it. When you get to final assembly (or close to it) look at it again with a fresh set of eyes and decide if you need a new skin or if epoxy and micro is fine. (Heck if you get it painted ask he shop to make it look better if you are concerned. ) Just my 2 cents. -Brian On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:09 PM Tim Jennings wrote : > Alright, I was making great progress and then used my non dominant hand > to rivet the second side of the VS skin and managed to make about 6 dents > in the skin along the front spar before I realized the poor form and > consequent mistake. They are absolutely noticeable. In a "done is bette r > than perfect" moment I kept riveting once I was cooled off about the > mistake so that I would have a finished part. Now I am looking for a > filler that I can use to make the dents go away before I drill out all th e > rivets and try a second time with a NEW skin. Is there anyone out there or > "has a friend" who has made a mistake like this before and lived to tell > the tale while using a filler that has stood the test of time? I have lo ts > of experience with Bondo from my motorcycle painting days and know it is > NOT up to this task. Flex/expand/contract/vibrate, all things that would > separate brittle Bondo from the skin making it unsuitable for this task. I > am hopeful there is a better product out there for aviation before I crac k > out the drill and try my hand at a second skin? > > Thanks, > Tim > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dents in VS Skin from flush set..... ARGGGGGHHHHHH
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: May 20, 2018
Very good advice. I believe one filler that will work is "Superfill", which is a mix of epoxy resin and high percentage of micro-balloons. Available at AC Spruce and similar vendors. On 5/20/2018 7:21 PM, Brian Lester wrote: > Leave it be, at least for now. > At least that was my decision when I had some imperfections. Dont > worry about fixing dents if its just a surface imperfection. Build on > and learn from it. > When you get to final assembly (or close to it) look at it again with a > fresh set of eyes and decide if you need a new skin or if epoxy and > micro is fine. (Heck if you get it painted ask he shop to make it look > better if you are concerned. ) > > Just my 2 cents. > > -Brian > On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:09 PM Tim Jennings > wrote: > > Alright, I was making great progress and then used my non dominant > hand to rivet the second side of the VS skin and managed to make > about 6 dents in the skin along the front spar before I realized the > poor form and consequent mistake. They are absolutely noticeable. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 20, 2018
Subject: Re: Dents in VS Skin from flush set..... ARGGGGGHHHHHH
+1 for superfill. It's the "Cadillac of Bondo". Only downside is that it takes a lot longer to cure than polyester--count on at least several hours. Those dents are like the first door ding on a new car. They hurt the worst but it you'll get past it. Learning how to fix the mistake is pretty valuable. --Dave On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Tim Jennings wrote: > Alright, I was making great progress and then used my non dominant hand > to rivet the second side of the VS skin and managed to make about 6 dents > in the skin along the front spar before I realized the poor form and > consequent mistake. They are absolutely noticeable. In a "done is better > than perfect" moment I kept riveting once I was cooled off about the > mistake so that I would have a finished part. Now I am looking for a > filler that I can use to make the dents go away before I drill out all the > rivets and try a second time with a NEW skin. Is there anyone out there or > "has a friend" who has made a mistake like this before and lived to tell > the tale while using a filler that has stood the test of time? I have lots > of experience with Bondo from my motorcycle painting days and know it is > NOT up to this task. Flex/expand/contract/vibrate, all things that would > separate brittle Bondo from the skin making it unsuitable for this task. I > am hopeful there is a better product out there for aviation before I crack > out the drill and try my hand at a second skin? > > Thanks, > Tim > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 22, 2018
Subject: Sun Visor
I have been living with suction cup car shades in the plane for the last year. This is what I currently have: Shades While they work pretty well for the passenger rear-windows and the doors, they are an unnecessary distraction, inconvenience, and safety issue for the wind shield. I am ready to bite the bullet and put in some visors. I am really only finding two options out there. 1. Blue Sky's Visor <http://www.blueskysunvisors.com/> - ~$200 2. Rosen + 3rd Axis <http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/rosenvisors.php#> - ~$520 Reviews I am reading on Blue Sky are pretty abysmal. They do not stay in place, any turbulence causes them to move, drop every time you touch down, etc. The tightening screws eventually give out and things have to be replaced. Rosen is apparently made from solid gold, personally dug by Tibetan monks on the north face of Mount Everest. 2 fellow 10's on the airport have switched from BS to Ro$en. Are there any other options out there? Is this truly a matter of you get what you pay for? What are you guys using? What would you recommend? -- Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 22, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
No issues with my Rosen=99s. Trouble free and I have never given any t hought to them failing. They just work as advertised, so the thought has n ever even crossed my mind. Out of sight, out of mind. Sent from my iPhone > On May 22, 2018, at 11:28 AM, Vernon Franklin w rote: > > I have been living with suction cup car shades in the plane for the last y ear. This is what I currently have: Shades > > While they work pretty well for the passenger rear-windows and the doors, t hey are an unnecessary distraction, inconvenience, and safety issue for the w ind shield. > > I am ready to bite the bullet and put in some visors. > I am really only finding two options out there. > Blue Sky's Visor - ~$200 > Rosen + 3rd Axis - ~$520 > > Reviews I am reading on Blue Sky are pretty abysmal. They do not stay in p lace, any turbulence causes them to move, drop every time you touch down, et c. The tightening screws eventually give out and things have to be replaced . > > Rosen is apparently made from solid gold, personally dug by Tibetan monks o n the north face of Mount Everest. > > 2 fellow 10's on the airport have switched from BS to Ro$en. > > Are there any other options out there? Is this truly a matter of you get w hat you pay for? > > What are you guys using? What would you recommend? > > -- > Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phil Yoder <phil(at)philyoder.com>
Date: May 22, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
You get what you pay for with Rosen=99s- but I=99m shocked that they are north of $500. But then, nothing surprises me anymore. Phil On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 12:57 PM Phillip Perry wrote : > No issues with my Rosen=99s. Trouble free and I have never given a ny > thought to them failing. They just work as advertised, so the thought > has never even crossed my mind. > > Out of sight, out of mind. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 22, 2018, at 11:28 AM, Vernon Franklin > wrote: > > I have been living with suction cup car shades in the plane for the last > year. This is what I currently have: Shades > > > While they work pretty well for the passenger rear-windows and the doors, > they are an unnecessary distraction, inconvenience, and safety issue for > the wind shield. > > I am ready to bite the bullet and put in some visors. > I am really only finding two options out there. > > 1. Blue Sky's Visor <http://www.blueskysunvisors.com/> - ~$200 > 2. Rosen + 3rd Axis > <http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/rosenvisors.php#> - > ~$520 > > > Reviews I am reading on Blue Sky are pretty abysmal. They do not stay in > place, any turbulence causes them to move, drop every time you touch down , > etc. The tightening screws eventually give out and things have to be > replaced. > > Rosen is apparently made from solid gold, personally dug by Tibetan monks > on the north face of Mount Everest. > > 2 fellow 10's on the airport have switched from BS to Ro$en. > > Are there any other options out there? Is this truly a matter of you get > what you pay for? > > What are you guys using? What would you recommend? > > > -- > Vernon Franklin > > -- Phil Yoder phil(at)philyoder.com \__________o-( )-o__________/ www.itsnotthatcomplex.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Philips" <jack(at)bedfordlandings.com>
Subject: Sun Visor
Date: May 22, 2018
I have Rosen=99s on my Cessna 170B and like them so well I bought a set for my RV-10 project. If you go to SNF or OSH they do give a slight =9CShow Special=9D discount. Jack Phillips #40610 =93 about ready to put it on its gear Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vernon Franklin Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 12:29 PM Subject: RV10-List: Sun Visor I have been living with suction cup car shades in the plane for the last year. This is what I currently have: Shades While they work pretty well for the passenger rear-windows and the doors, they are an unnecessary distraction, inconvenience, and safety issue for the wind shield. I am ready to bite the bullet and put in some visors. I am really only finding two options out there. 1. Blue Sky's Visor <http://www.blueskysunvisors.com/> - ~$200 2. Rosen <http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/rosenvisors.php> + 3rd Axis - ~$520 Reviews I am reading on Blue Sky are pretty abysmal. They do not stay in place, any turbulence causes them to move, drop every time you touch down, etc. The tightening screws eventually give out and things have to be replaced. Rosen is apparently made from solid gold, personally dug by Tibetan monks on the north face of Mount Everest. 2 fellow 10's on the airport have switched from BS to Ro$en. Are there any other options out there? Is this truly a matter of you get what you pay for? What are you guys using? What would you recommend? -- Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: May 22, 2018
I've had the Blue sky visors for many years now. There was a time when they didn't want to stay in place very well, but after tightening them up a bit they work fine for me. They're far cheaper, as you noted, but also lighter, and more compact and easy to fold out of the way. I agree that by all appearances the Rosen visors are built tougher and everything else. I just don't think that $520 has any real world way to justify that kind of price for a little bit of aluminum and brackets, and plexi, and once the price gets that high I get a little bit bothered to the point that I find it hard to support them. To many others it may be well worth it. To me, I've been happy with mine for much less cost. Your best bet is to visit a couple of planes and physically see them first hand to see what you find satisfactory. If you do go with Rosen, at least buy them at some show special price. Tim On 05/22/2018 11:28 AM, Vernon Franklin wrote: > I have been living with suction cup car shades in the plane for the last > year. This is what I currently have: Shades > > > While they work pretty well for the passenger rear-windows and the > doors, they are an unnecessary distraction, inconvenience, and safety > issue for the wind shield. > > I am ready to bite the bullet and put in some visors. > I am really only finding two options out there. > > 1. Blue Sky's Visor <http://www.blueskysunvisors.com/>- ~$200 > 2. Rosen+ 3rd Axis > <http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/rosenvisors.php#>- > ~$520 > > > Reviews I am reading on Blue Sky are pretty abysmal. They do not stay > in place, any turbulence causes them to move, drop every time you touch > down, etc. The tightening screws eventually give out and things have to > be replaced. > > Rosen is apparently made from solid gold, personally dug by Tibetan > monks on the north face of Mount Everest. > > 2 fellow 10's on the airport have switched from BS to Ro$en. > > Are there any other options out there? Is this truly a matter of you > get what you pay for? > > What are you guys using? What would you recommend? > > -- > Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 22, 2018
Okay guys. If you place any value on looks just skip this post. Ill pay airplane prices for airplane parts, but a sun visor? I took a piece of 2x4, drilled a hole thru it, cut it lengthwise so now I had two semi-circular holes, put it together with some bolts and wingnuts on the center post. Tension on the bolts adjusted so it slides up and down on the post with some force applied, but otherwise stays put. I think I put some felt or velco inside the hole, not sure. Two dowl rods extend out horizontally on each side. Attached to each rod is a green plastic visor from ACS with its suction cup removed ($15 iirc). These have pretty good optical quality. I can move them up/down, or side to side a bit, but no side window coverage. Rotate up and out of the way when not in use. Look like hell but they work. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480318#480318 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: May 22, 2018
I agree with Tim. I bought mine at a Flymart, but believe they are the Blue Sky. I might have needed to adjust tension initially. I rarely move mine much from the straight ahead max shade position, which probably reduces wear and tear. Otherwise, just buy some static cling tinting material, cut into appropriate size/shape, and slap it up there. That is what I use for side windows. Kelly On 5/22/2018 10:36 AM, Tim Olson wrote: > > I've had the Blue sky visors for many years now. There was a time when > they didn't want to stay in place very well, but after tightening them > up a bit they work fine for me. They're far cheaper, as you noted, > but also lighter, and more compact and easy to fold out of the way. . To me, I've been > happy with mine for much less cost. Your best bet is to > visit a couple of planes and physically see them first hand to > see what you find satisfactory. If you do go with Rosen, at > least buy them at some show special price. > Tim > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Date: May 22, 2018
Subject: Jet Shades | Removable Tinted Panels Block UV/Glare/Heat While
Flying! My friend has ordered these for his RV 10 theyre pricey will have to report how well they work https://jet-shades.com/ Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Maib <dmaib(at)mac.com>
Date: May 22, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
Im another happy Blue Sky customer. Coming up on 10 years and north of 1000 hours. I flew professionally with Rosens for decades and they are great. I looked at both when I was building. One thing I didnt particularly care for was the size of the Rosens. In my opinion, theyre too big for the airplane, when compared to Blue Sky. I adjust the tension screws once or twice a year, and have had no problems. I can even adjust them in flight with the short Phillips head I keep in the cockpit to open my oil door on the cowling. David Maib > On May 22, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > I've had the Blue sky visors for many years now. There was a time when > they didn't want to stay in place very well, but after tightening them > up a bit they work fine for me. They're far cheaper, as you noted, > but also lighter, and more compact and easy to fold out of the way. > I agree that by all appearances the Rosen visors are built tougher > and everything else. I just don't think that $520 has any real > world way to justify that kind of price for a little bit of aluminum > and brackets, and plexi, and once the price gets that high I get > a little bit bothered to the point that I find it hard to support > them. To many others it may be well worth it. To me, I've been > happy with mine for much less cost. Your best bet is to > visit a couple of planes and physically see them first hand to > see what you find satisfactory. If you do go with Rosen, at > least buy them at some show special price. > Tim > > >> On 05/22/2018 11:28 AM, Vernon Franklin wrote: >> I have been living with suction cup car shades in the plane for the last year. This is what I currently have: Shades >> While they work pretty well for the passenger rear-windows and the doors, they are an unnecessary distraction, inconvenience, and safety issue for the wind shield. >> I am ready to bite the bullet and put in some visors. >> I am really only finding two options out there. >> 1. Blue Sky's Visor <http://www.blueskysunvisors.com/> - ~$200 >> 2. Rosen + 3rd Axis >> <http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/rosenvisors.php#> - >> ~$520 Reviews I am reading on Blue Sky are pretty abysmal. They do not stay in place, any turbulence causes them to move, drop every time you touch down, etc. The tightening screws eventually give out and things have to be replaced. >> Rosen is apparently made from solid gold, personally dug by Tibetan monks on the north face of Mount Everest. >> 2 fellow 10's on the airport have switched from BS to Ro$en. >> Are there any other options out there? Is this truly a matter of you get what you pay for? >> What are you guys using? What would you recommend? >> -- >> Vernon Franklin > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Miller <gengrumpy(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Jet Shades | Removable Tinted Panels Block UV/Glare/Heat
While Flying!
Date: May 22, 2018
How did he order for a 10? Their website does not mention ones for a 10. Grumpy > On May 22, 2018, at 3:42 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: > > > My friend has ordered these for his RV 10 theyre pricey will have to report how well they work > https://jet-shades.com/ > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net>
Date: May 23, 2018
Subject: Re: Jet Shades | Removable Tinted Panels Block UV/Glare/Heat
While Flying! At sun n fun templates were made from his 10 Alan Sent from my iPhone > On May 22, 2018, at 9:09 PM, John Miller wrote: > > > How did he order for a 10? Their website does not mention ones for a 10. > > Grumpy > >> On May 22, 2018, at 3:42 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote: >> >> >> My friend has ordered these for his RV 10 theyre pricey will have to report how well they work >> https://jet-shades.com/ >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 23, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
Raise your hand if you'd like to see pics of Bob's DIY visors... :-) On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > Okay guys. If you place any value on =98looks=99 just skip th is post. > I=99ll pay airplane prices for airplane parts, but a sun visor? I t ook a > piece of 2x4, drilled a hole thru it, cut it lengthwise so now I had two > semi-circular holes, put it together with some bolts and wingnuts on the > center post. Tension on the bolts adjusted so it slides up and down on th e > post with some force applied, but otherwise stays put. I think I put some > felt or velco inside the hole, not sure. Two dowl rods extend out > horizontally on each side. Attached to each rod is a green plastic visor > from ACS with its suction cup removed ($15 iirc). These have pretty good > optical quality. I can move them up/down, or side to side a bit, but no > side window coverage. Rotate up and out of the way when not in use. Look > like hell but they work. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480318#480318 > > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 23, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
From: parish <parish(at)parishmoffitt.com>
wqAKClNlbnQgZnJvbSBteSBULU1vYmlsZSA0RyBMVEUgRGV2aWNlCi0tLS0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFs IG1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0tLS1Gcm9tOiBCaWxsIEJveWQgPHNwb3J0YXY4ckBnbWFpbC5jb20+IERh dGU6IDUvMjMvMTggIDk6MjMgQU0gIChHTVQtMDU6MDApIFRvOiBydjEwLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9uaWNz LmNvbSBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogUlYxMC1MaXN0OiBSZTogU3VuIFZpc29yIApSYWlzZSB5b3VyIGhh bmQgaWYgeW91J2QgbGlrZSB0byBzZWUgcGljcyBvZiBCb2IncyBESVkgdmlzb3JzLi4uCjotKQpP biBUdWUsIE1heSAyMiwgMjAxOCBhdCA0OjE0IFBNLCBCb2IgVHVybmVyIDxib2J0dXJuZXJAYWx1 bS5ycGkuZWR1PiB3cm90ZToKLS0+IFJWMTAtTGlzdCBtZXNzYWdlIHBvc3RlZCBieTogIkJvYiBU dXJuZXIiIDxib2J0dXJuZXJAYWx1bS5ycGkuZWR1PgoKCgpPa2F5IGd1eXMuIElmIHlvdSBwbGFj ZSBhbnkgdmFsdWUgb24g4oCYbG9va3PigJkganVzdCBza2lwIHRoaXMgcG9zdC4KCknigJlsbCBw YXkgYWlycGxhbmUgcHJpY2VzIGZvciBhaXJwbGFuZSBwYXJ0cywgYnV0IGEgc3VuIHZpc29yPyBJ IHRvb2sgYSBwaWVjZSBvZiAyeDQsIGRyaWxsZWQgYSBob2xlIHRocnUgaXQsIGN1dCBpdCBsZW5n dGh3aXNlIHNvIG5vdyBJIGhhZCB0d28gc2VtaS1jaXJjdWxhciBob2xlcywgcHV0IGl0IHRvZ2V0 aGVyIHdpdGggc29tZSBib2x0cyBhbmQgd2luZ251dHMgb24gdGhlIGNlbnRlciBwb3N0LiBUZW5z aW9uIG9uIHRoZSBib2x0cyBhZGp1c3RlZCBzbyBpdCBzbGlkZXMgdXAgYW5kIGRvd24gb24gdGhl IHBvc3Qgd2l0aCBzb21lIGZvcmNlIGFwcGxpZWQsIGJ1dCBvdGhlcndpc2Ugc3RheXMgcHV0LiBJ IHRoaW5rIEkgcHV0IHNvbWUgZmVsdCBvciB2ZWxjbyBpbnNpZGUgdGhlIGhvbGUsIG5vdCBzdXJl LiBUd28gZG93bCByb2RzIGV4dGVuZCBvdXQgaG9yaXpvbnRhbGx5IG9uIGVhY2ggc2lkZS4gQXR0 YWNoZWQgdG8gZWFjaCByb2QgaXMgYSBncmVlbiBwbGFzdGljIHZpc29yIGZyb20gQUNTIHdpdGgg aXRzIHN1Y3Rpb24gY3VwIHJlbW92ZWQgKCQxNSBpaXJjKS4gVGhlc2UgaGF2ZSBwcmV0dHkgZ29v ZCBvcHRpY2FsIHF1YWxpdHkuIEkgY2FuIG1vdmUgdGhlbSB1cC9kb3duLCBvciBzaWRlIHRvIHNp ZGUgYSBiaXQsIGJ1dCBubyBzaWRlIHdpbmRvdyBjb3ZlcmFnZS4gUm90YXRlIHVwIGFuZCBvdXQg b2YgdGhlIHdheSB3aGVuIG5vdCBpbiB1c2UuIExvb2sgbGlrZSBoZWxsIGJ1dCB0aGV5IHdvcmsu CgoKCi0tLS0tLS0tCgpCb2IgVHVybmVyCgpSVi0xMCBRQgoKCgoKCgoKCgpSZWFkIHRoaXMgdG9w aWMgb25saW5lIGhlcmU6CgoKCmh0dHA6Ly9mb3J1bXMubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbS92aWV3dG9waWMu cGhwP3A9NDgwMzE4IzQ4MDMxOAoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09CgotTGlzdCIgcmVsPSJub3JlZmVycmVyIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+aHR0 cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL05hdmlnYXRvcj9SVjEwLUxpc3QKCj09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQoKIEZPUlVNUyAtCgplZmVycmVyIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFu ayI+aHR0cDovL2ZvcnVtcy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tCgo9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT0KCldJS0kgLQoKZXJyZXIiIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5odHRwOi8vd2lraS5t YXRyb25pY3MuY29tCgo9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0KCmIgU2l0 ZSAtCgrCoCDCoCDCoCDCoCDCoCAtTWF0dCBEcmFsbGUsIExpc3QgQWRtaW4uCgpyZWw9Im5vcmVm ZXJyZXIiIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5odHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vY29udHJpYnV0 aW9uCgo9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0KCgoKCgoKCgoK ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
From: "Greg McFarlane" <grbcmcfarlane(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 23, 2018
Ive got the visors that Blue Sky make specifically for the RV10 and would recommend them. They are made well and they fit and work extremely well, and look good. Fitting was simple with each side only needing one hole in the pillar and secured by the one screw. After the initial fit I applied release agent to the square mounting peg and built up around the peg about 3/4inch with a epoxy/flox mix which gave more security and support to the mount and also a more finished look, IMHO Cheers from Western Australia Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480345#480345 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 23, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
Definitely! Bob, where are the goods? Vernon On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:03 AM parish wrote: > > > Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> > Date: 5/23/18 9:23 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Sun Visor > > Raise your hand if you'd like to see pics of Bob's DIY visors... > > :-) > > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Bob Turner > wrote: > >> >> Okay guys. If you place any value on =98looks=99 just skip t his post. >> I=99ll pay airplane prices for airplane parts, but a sun visor? I took a >> piece of 2x4, drilled a hole thru it, cut it lengthwise so now I had two >> semi-circular holes, put it together with some bolts and wingnuts on the >> center post. Tension on the bolts adjusted so it slides up and down on t he >> post with some force applied, but otherwise stays put. I think I put som e >> felt or velco inside the hole, not sure. Two dowl rods extend out >> horizontally on each side. Attached to each rod is a green plastic visor >> from ACS with its suction cup removed ($15 iirc). These have pretty good >> optical quality. I can move them up/down, or side to side a bit, but no >> side window coverage. Rotate up and out of the way when not in use. Look >> like hell but they work. >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480318#480318 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ======================== =========== >> -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/contributi on >> ======================== =========== >> >> >> >> > -- Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Wing attach hardware
From: Gordon Anderson <mregoan(at)hispeed.ch>
Date: May 23, 2018
Has anyone else out there noted that the single washer specified for each of the NAS wing attach bolts (page 44-11 figure 1) is not sufficient to prevent the nut binding up on the bolt thread runout before fully clamping the wing spars? Just curious if mine are an anomaly or if everyone spots the problem and fixes it by adding extra washers. Gordon 41015 in final assembly, Switzerland ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Albert" <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: SkyBeacon ADS-B Out Solution
Date: May 23, 2018
Has anyone installed the SkyBeacon on a RV-10? Would like to see a report if so. Thanks, Albert Gardner RV-10 N991RV Yuma, AZ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: SkyBeacon ADS-B Out Solution
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: May 23, 2018
If the software is anything like that of the Echo, I'd avoid it in a big way. Get something good and reliable with full aviation integration. Tim On 5/23/2018 3:33 PM, Albert wrote: > > Has anyone installed the SkyBeacon on a RV-10? Would like to see a report if > so. > Thanks, > Albert Gardner > RV-10 N991RV > Yuma, AZ > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Curtis Groote <cgroote1(at)yahoo.com>
Date: May 24, 2018
Subject: Re:SkyBeacon ADS-B out
Tim, whats the story on the Echo and Skyfx? Why avoid them? Curtis Groote ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Timothy Meyer <tgmeyerster(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 25, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
Try a google search for =9Crammount visor=9D On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:02 PM Vernon Franklin wrote: > Definitely! > Bob, where are the goods? > > Vernon > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:03 AM parish wrote: > >> >> >> >> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> >> Date: 5/23/18 9:23 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Sun Visor >> >> Raise your hand if you'd like to see pics of Bob's DIY visors... >> >> :-) >> >> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Bob Turner >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Okay guys. If you place any value on =98looks=99 just skip this post. >>> I=99ll pay airplane prices for airplane parts, but a sun visor? I took a >>> piece of 2x4, drilled a hole thru it, cut it lengthwise so now I had tw o >>> semi-circular holes, put it together with some bolts and wingnuts on th e >>> center post. Tension on the bolts adjusted so it slides up and down on the >>> post with some force applied, but otherwise stays put. I think I put so me >>> felt or velco inside the hole, not sure. Two dowl rods extend out >>> horizontally on each side. Attached to each rod is a green plastic viso r >>> from ACS with its suction cup removed ($15 iirc). These have pretty goo d >>> optical quality. I can move them up/down, or side to side a bit, but no >>> side window coverage. Rotate up and out of the way when not in use. Loo k >>> like hell but they work. >>> >>> -------- >>> Bob Turner >>> RV-10 QB >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Read this topic online here: >>> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480318#480318 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ========== >>> -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/contribut ion >>> ========== >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- > Vernon Franklin > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re:SkyBeacon ADS-B out
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: May 25, 2018
It's a long story Curtis. Go to my RV-14 site (www.myrv14.com) and read the ADS-B update link. In short, it's got reliability issues, very poor software, and a bunch of other things that make it far, as in long-distance far, from the quality of what you would get from some of the more big name products, and quality wise it's absolutely no match for even the old NavWorX stuff that is no longer available. This is in relation to the Echo, but I would not expect much for differences between that and some of these other products. Educate yourself well before purchase and buyer beware is my advice. Tim On 5/24/2018 8:08 AM, Curtis Groote wrote: > > > Tim, whats the story on the Echo and Skyfx? Why avoid them? > > Curtis Groote ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 25, 2018
-------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480400#480400 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 25, 2018
See if this works.... -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480401#480401 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
From: "dmaib(at)me.com" <dmaib(at)me.com>
Date: May 25, 2018
Nope. -------- David Maib RV-10 #40559 New Smyrna Beach, FL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480404#480404 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 25, 2018
Ha -:) My comment was aimed at the fact that two previous attempts to post a picture had failed (and since deleted), but I can see your interpretation. At least you were forewarned about the lack of beauty! I think the photo exaggerates their size; each is 6 x 12. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480406#480406 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: May 25, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
:). I think he meant the pics didnt post. I didnt see them either. Tim > On May 25, 2018, at 10:30 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > Ha -:) > My comment was aimed at the fact that two previous attempts to post a picture had failed (and since deleted), but I can see your interpretation. At least you were forewarned about the lack of beauty! I think the photo exaggerates their size; each is 6 x 12. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480406#480406 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 25, 2018
Help! I see the photo. Posted on TinyPics. Any ideas? -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480408#480408 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lenard Iszak <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com>
Date: May 26, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
It does show on the web: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480401 Lenny > On May 25, 2018, at 11:54 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > Help! I see the photo. Posted on TinyPics. Any ideas? > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480408#480408 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: May 26, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
Ah sure. So it=99s there but just that the email viewers can=99 t see it. That makes sense, thanks Lenny! Tim > On May 25, 2018, at 11:18 PM, Lenard Iszak wrot e: > > It does show on the web: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480401 > > > Lenny > > >> On May 25, 2018, at 11:54 PM, Bob Turner wrote: >> >> >> Help! I see the photo. Posted on TinyPics. Any ideas? >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480408#480408 >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forum====== ========================== ====================; - NEW MATR ONICS LIST WIKI - >> _nbsp; --> http://wiki.matronic============== ============ - Lnbsp; -Matt Dralle, Ltronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contrib ution >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: May 26, 2018
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
Bob, That really isn=99t too bad for a one off at least. It could very eas ily be improved on and probably end up being a pretty decent product that co uld be mass produced for the RV10 without a lot of work. A block of black Delrin for the block, Made much smaller and cut to both clamp around the bar and hold the dowel al l in one piece. Then a dowel made of the same or similar black plastic, or e ven aluminum painted, and some nice smoked plexi attached, all with black sc rews. The only downside at that point over some of the others would be that by cen ter mounting you can=99t swing them to the side window. Anyway, with a little effort that could be tweaked and made to not even look much like a DIY system. The BlueSky ones may still be lighter, and swivel both ways and only require one mounting hole though. So it=99s at least a more expensive but not over the top option. Tim > On May 25, 2018, at 11:18 PM, Lenard Iszak wrot e: > > It does show on the web: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480401 > > > Lenny > > >> On May 25, 2018, at 11:54 PM, Bob Turner wrote: >> >> >> Help! I see the photo. Posted on TinyPics. Any ideas? >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480408#480408 >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forum====== ========================== ====================; - NEW MATR ONICS LIST WIKI - >> _nbsp; --> http://wiki.matronic============== ============ - Lnbsp; -Matt Dralle, Ltronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contrib ution >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 26, 2018
Thanks Tim. Main point I wanted to make was that the $8 each (I looked up the price) tinted plexi from ACS is actually a good product to start from. I cant detect any optical distortion in it. But the original suction cup mounting wont hold inverted. I keep extra ones in the seat pocket with their suction cups still attached, for myself and passengers to use on the side windows. How do I make photos more easily visible? -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480419#480419 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 26, 2018
Subject: First Conditional
My first year has flown by :) I am starting my conditional this week. I found this RV conditional check list online that looks pretty thorough, I thought I would share: - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B31MKmXjYxYqeWZhcHRlakZzNlE/view?usp=sharing My main question for the group is in regards to logs. What is the wording that I should use for the log entries when complete? Specifically, for the Engine, Propeller and Aircraft logs. Is it similar to an annual? For example: "I certify this XXX has been inspected in accordance with a conditional inspection, and was determined to be in an airworthy condition." Thanks! -- Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: First Conditional
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 26, 2018
I think you will find suggested wording in your operating limitations document. These days the faa recommends you do not use the word airworthy, as that specifically means Is in conformance with its type certificate. Of course EAB aircraft dont have a type certificate. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480425#480425 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: First Conditional
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 26, 2018
Also, while most people keep separate logbooks for engine, airframe, and prop, there is no legal requirement to do so. One conditional inspection sign off (usually in the airframe book) is all that is needed. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480426#480426 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 26, 2018
Subject: Re: First Condition
1. It is a condition inspection, not conditional. 2. Your operating limitations will tell you exactly what to do and what language to use on the sign off. 3. You can use whatever checklist pleases you as long as it contains at least the scope and detail of 14 CFR 43 Appendix D. 4. Your sign off will contain the these or similar words " I find this aircraft to be in a *condition* for safe operation." That is why it is a condition inspection. I ass-ume you have obtained from your local FSDO a repairman's certificate for your aircraft that permits you to sign off this inspection. You must maintain "records" of maintenance and inspections. Whether those take the form of logbook(s) or a three ring binder or a file folder does not matter. As Bob mentioned, there is no such thing as "airworthy" for an aircraft that does not have an approved type certificate and type certificate data sheet. Only aircraft that have a Standard Airworthiness Certificate on a white piece of paper will meet that requirement. The fact that you have a Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental category with operating limitations is your clue that it will never be "airworthy". Kelly A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor Sent from my IBM-360 main frame On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Vernon Franklin wrote: > My first year has flown by :) I am starting my conditional this week. > > I found this RV conditional check list online that looks pretty thorough, > I thought I would share: > > - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B31MKmXjYxYqeWZhcHRlakZzNlE > /view?usp=sharing > > > My main question for the group is in regards to logs. What is the wording > that I should use for the log entries when complete? Specifically, for the > Engine, Propeller and Aircraft logs. > > Is it similar to an annual? For example: "I certify this XXX has been > inspected in accordance with a conditional inspection, and was determined > to be in an airworthy condition." > > Thanks! > > -- > Vernon Franklin > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 27, 2018
Subject: Re: First Condition
All very good information, thanks guys. It sounds like the log entry I added before first flight. It should just be repeated at each year's condition. > "I certify this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with scope and detail of Appendix D to Part 43 and has been found to be in a condition for safe operation." Yes, the Repairman's Certificate was the first thing I went out and got after completion. I would be surprised to hear of any builder who didn't. Thanks everyone! Vernon On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 9:05 PM Kelly McMullen wrote: > > 1. It is a condition inspection, not conditional. > 2. Your operating limitations will tell you exactly what to do and what > language to use on the sign off. > 3. You can use whatever checklist pleases you as long as it contains at > least the scope and detail of 14 CFR 43 Appendix D. > 4. Your sign off will contain the these or similar words " I find this > aircraft to be in a *condition* for safe operation." That is why it is a > condition inspection. > I ass-ume you have obtained from your local FSDO a repairman's certificate > for your aircraft that permits you to sign off this inspection. > You must maintain "records" of maintenance and inspections. Whether those > take the form of logbook(s) or a three ring binder or a file folder does > not matter. > As Bob mentioned, there is no such thing as "airworthy" for an aircraft > that does not have an approved type certificate and type certificate data > sheet. Only aircraft that have a Standard Airworthiness Certificate on a > white piece of paper will meet that requirement. The fact that you have a > Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental category with > operating limitations is your clue that it will never be "airworthy". > > Kelly > A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor > > Sent from my IBM-360 main frame > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Vernon Franklin < > vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com> wrote: > >> My first year has flown by :) I am starting my conditional this week. >> >> I found this RV conditional check list online that looks pretty thorough, >> I thought I would share: >> >> - >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B31MKmXjYxYqeWZhcHRlakZzNlE/view?usp=sharing >> >> >> My main question for the group is in regards to logs. What is the >> wording that I should use for the log entries when complete? Specifically, >> for the Engine, Propeller and Aircraft logs. >> >> Is it similar to an annual? For example: "I certify this XXX has been >> inspected in accordance with a conditional inspection, and was determined >> to be in an airworthy condition." >> >> Thanks! >> >> -- >> Vernon Franklin >> > > -- Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: First Condition Inspection
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: May 27, 2018
The point is to use the exact words that are contained in your operating limitations. Don't freelance on the wording. For the last 10 years or so, all operating limitations should have same wording, but you never know. Also a good time to verify that you have copy of operating limitations, weight and balance and registration all in the plane as required. (you would be surprised how many don't carry their operating limitations). On 5/27/2018 5:37 AM, Vernon Franklin wrote: > All very good information, thanks guys. It sounds like the log entry I > added before first flight. It should just be repeated at each year's > condition. > > > "I certify this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with scope > and detail of Appendix D to Part 43 and has been found to be in a > condition for safe operation." > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 27, 2018
Subject: Re: First Conditional
Maintained correctly, our airplanes are airworthy. They have airworthiness certificates. They fit the FAA's definition, which acknowledges that they needn't conform to a type design. 91.7 says we're not allowed to take off unless the plane is airworthy. If you want to substitute "airworthy" for "in a condition for safe operation" in your signoff, go ahead. That's about as similarly worded as you can get! 8130.2J Appendix I Definitions: Airworthy. An aircraft with a type certificate (TC) is airworthy when it conforms to its U.S. TC and is in a condition for safe operation. For the purpose of this order, a non-type-certificated aircraft is airworthy when it is in a condition for safe operation. --Dave On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:50 PM Bob Turner wrote: > > I think you will find suggested wording in your operating limitations > document. These days the faa recommends you do not use the word > =9Cairworthy=9D, as that specifically means =9CIs in co nformance with its type > certificate=9D. Of course EAB aircraft don=99t have a type ce rtificate. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480425#480425 > > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 27, 2018
Subject: Re: First Conditional
You are debating with the FAA themselves. The definition says it has to have a type certificate. They then insert circular wording to say condition for safe operation means airworthy, which it does not. Experimental aircraft have a "special airworthiness certificate" because they don't meet the requirements for a "Standard" airworthiness certificate. Look at the required passenger warning on your instrument panel that states the aircraft does not meet all FA A airworthiness requirements. Your operating limitations state the very specific language to be used for sign-off of a condition inspection. Use other language at your own peril. The language is there to protect you more than anything else. Type certificated aircraft have very specific language for sign off of their annual inspection, and any inspector that values his certificates will use that language. Sent from my IBM-360 main frame On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 9:53 AM, David Saylor wrote : > Maintained correctly, our airplanes are airworthy. They have > airworthiness certificates. They fit the FAA's definition, which > acknowledges that they needn't conform to a type design. 91.7 says we're > not allowed to take off unless the plane is airworthy. > > If you want to substitute "airworthy" for "in a condition for safe > operation" in your signoff, go ahead. That's about as similarly worded a s > you can get! > > 8130.2J > Appendix I > Definitions: > Airworthy. An aircraft with a type certificate (TC) is airworthy when it > conforms to its U.S. TC and is in a condition for safe operation. For the > purpose of this order, a non-type-certificated aircraft is airworthy when > it is in a condition for safe operation. > > --Dave > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:50 PM Bob Turner wrote : > >> >> I think you will find suggested wording in your operating limitations >> document. These days the faa recommends you do not use the word >> =9Cairworthy=9D, as that specifically means =9CIs in c onformance with its type >> certificate=9D. Of course EAB aircraft don=99t have a type c ertificate. >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480425#480425 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========== >> -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/contributi on >> ========== >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: May 27, 2018
Subject: Re: First Conditional
The operating limitations, iirc, give the wording then say =9Cor simil arly worded statement=9D. The passenger warning says it does not meet t he federal safety regulations for standard aircraft, but does not say anythi ng about airworthiness. The special airworthiness certificate is still and a irworthiness certificate. All that aside, the easiest way to handle it is to use the wording in the operating limitations. I see many experimentals that have past sign offs with the certified plane wording. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. 352-427-0285 jesse(at)saintaviation.com Sent from my iPad > On May 27, 2018, at 8:14 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > You are debating with the FAA themselves. The definition says it has to ha ve a type certificate. They then insert circular wording to say condition fo r safe operation means airworthy, which it does not. Experimental aircraft h ave a "special airworthiness certificate" because they don't meet the requir ements for a "Standard" airworthiness certificate. Look at the required pass enger warning on your instrument panel that states the aircraft does not mee t all FA A airworthiness requirements. Your operating limitations state the very specific language to be used for sign-off of a condition inspection. U se other language at your own peril. The language is there to protect you mo re than anything else. Type certificated aircraft have very specific languag e for sign off of their annual inspection, and any inspector that values his certificates will use that language. > > Sent from my IBM-360 main frame > >> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 9:53 AM, David Saylor wro te: >> Maintained correctly, our airplanes are airworthy. They have airworthine ss certificates. They fit the FAA's definition, which acknowledges that they needn't conform to a type design. 91.7 says we're not allowed to take off u nless the plane is airworthy. >> >> If you want to substitute "airworthy" for "in a condition for safe operat ion" in your signoff, go ahead. That's about as similarly worded as you can get! >> >> 8130.2J >> Appendix I >> Definitions: >> Airworthy. An aircraft with a type certificate (TC) is airworthy when it c onforms to its U.S. TC and is in a condition for safe operation. For the pur pose of this order, a non-type-certificated aircraft is airworthy when it is in a condition for safe operation. >> >> --Dave >> >>> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:50 PM Bob Turner wrot e: >>> >>> I think you will find suggested wording in your operating limitations do cument. These days the faa recommends you do not use the word =9Cairwo rthy=9D, as that specifically means =9CIs in conformance with it s type certificate=9D. Of course EAB aircraft don=99t have a typ e certificate. >>> >>> -------- >>> Bob Turner >>> RV-10 QB >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Read this topic online here: >>> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480425#480425 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ========== >>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Nav igator?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/contributi on >>> ========== >>> >>> >>> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: First Conditional
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: May 27, 2018
Dave, thanks for your post. I got my info out of the mouth of the FSDO guy, who only quoted me the first half of the definition you posted. If I had read the whole thing, I would have argued with him about it. (My wife says Im a contrarian by nature -:) ). -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480465#480465 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 27, 2018
Subject: Re: First Conditional
My pleasure, Bob. I figured as much. Some of those guys read a lot into a little, and it gets under my skin when they start making up their own rules . --Dave On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 6:33 PM Bob Turner wrote: > > Dave, thanks for your post. I got my info out of the mouth of the FSDO > guy, who only quoted me the first half of the definition you posted. If I > had read the whole thing, I would have argued with him about it. (My wife > says I=99m a contrarian by nature -:) ). > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480465#480465 > > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 28, 2018
Subject: Re: First Conditional
I agree. I've seen a lot of EABs with annuals signed off in the logs. Same fit, form, and function, but an annual is not a condition inspection. My concern would be, like Bob encountered, when a fed says we can't use the word "airworthy", like it's reserved for a higher class of aircraft or something. Not the case. --Dave On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Jesse Saint wrote : > The operating limitations, iirc, give the wording then say =9Cor si milarly > worded statement=9D. The passenger warning says it does not meet th e federal > safety regulations for standard aircraft, but does not say anything about > airworthiness. The special airworthiness certificate is still and > airworthiness certificate. All that aside, the easiest way to handle it i s > to use the wording in the operating limitations. I see many experimentals > that have past sign offs with the certified plane wording. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > 352-427-0285 > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 27, 2018, at 8:14 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > You are debating with the FAA themselves. The definition says it has to > have a type certificate. They then insert circular wording to say conditi on > for safe operation means airworthy, which it does not. Experimental > aircraft have a "special airworthiness certificate" because they don't me et > the requirements for a "Standard" airworthiness certificate. Look at the > required passenger warning on your instrument panel that states the > aircraft does not meet all FA A airworthiness requirements. Your operati ng > limitations state the very specific language to be used for sign-off of a > condition inspection. Use other language at your own peril. The language is > there to protect you more than anything else. Type certificated aircraft > have very specific language for sign off of their annual inspection, and > any inspector that values his certificates will use that language. > > Sent from my IBM-360 main frame > > > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 9:53 AM, David Saylor > wrote: > >> Maintained correctly, our airplanes are airworthy. They have >> airworthiness certificates. They fit the FAA's definition, which >> acknowledges that they needn't conform to a type design. 91.7 says we'r e >> not allowed to take off unless the plane is airworthy. >> >> If you want to substitute "airworthy" for "in a condition for safe >> operation" in your signoff, go ahead. That's about as similarly worded as >> you can get! >> >> 8130.2J >> Appendix I >> Definitions: >> Airworthy. An aircraft with a type certificate (TC) is airworthy when it >> conforms to its U.S. TC and is in a condition for safe operation. For th e >> purpose of this order, a non-type-certificated aircraft is airworthy whe n >> it is in a condition for safe operation. >> >> --Dave >> >> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:50 PM Bob Turner >> wrote: >> >>> >>> I think you will find suggested wording in your operating limitations >>> document. These days the faa recommends you do not use the word >>> =9Cairworthy=9D, as that specifically means =9CIs in conformance with its type >>> certificate=9D. Of course EAB aircraft don=99t have a type certificate. >>> >>> -------- >>> Bob Turner >>> RV-10 QB >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Read this topic online here: >>> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480425#480425 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ========== >>> -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/contribut ion >>> ========== >>> >>> >>> >>> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: First Condition Inspection
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: May 28, 2018
Dave, It is a definitional thing. You use the same Part 43 Appendix D guidance to do a 100 hour inspection, an annual inspection, and a condition inspection. You inspect the same things and for the most part standards are the same. However, an annual requires an IA, 100 hour an A&P, and a condition inspection can be a repairman or A&P. The FAA engages in a lot of circular definitions and arguments. They choose to define "airworthy" as an aircraft, airframe, engine, etc. that "conforms to its original or properly modified type certificate". No amateur built aircraft has a type certificate. So it can't meet the above definition. You can go off and find all kinds of links back to safety, safe for flight, certificates, etc. which still don't get you to conforming to a type certificate. I've seen plenty of type certificated aircraft that have only been signed off for 100 hour inspections for several years. By paperwork, they are not airworthy, regardless of how pristine the aircraft is. I see plenty of amateur built aircraft signed off for annuals...says nothing about the safety of the aircraft, but their paperwork is inadequate. Why not do it right, just as you would do the physical work right? No different than aircraft that go years without jam nuts properly tightened, cables not properly routed, etc. They haven't fallen out of the sky yet, but the potential is there. I saw a Cessna that had the flap and aileron cables crossed in the door posts for over 20 years. Would you want to hop in and fly that aircraft? Do you want to buy an amateur aircraft that the records show a history of improper inspection records? Your airplane blows a tire on landing, takes out a runway light or two. Do you want to be answering the investigating FSDO inspector's question about how you determined that the aircraft is "airworthy". Why put yourself in that situation? On 5/28/2018 6:17 AM, David Saylor wrote: > I agree. I've seen a lot of EABs with annuals signed off in the logs. > Same fit, form, and function, but an annual is not a condition inspection. > > My concern would be, like Bob encountered, when a fed says we can't use > the word "airworthy", like it's reserved for a higher class of aircraft > or something. Not the case. > > --Dave > > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Jesse Saint > wrote: > > The operating limitations, iirc, give the wording then say or > similarly worded statement. The passenger warning says it does not > meet the federal safety regulations for standard aircraft, but does > not say anything about airworthiness. The special airworthiness > certificate is still and airworthiness certificate. All that aside, > the easiest way to handle it is to use the wording in the operating > limitations. I see many experimentals that have past sign offs with > the certified plane wording. > > Jesse Saint > Saint Aviation, Inc. > 352-427-0285 > jesse(at)saintaviation.com > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 27, 2018, at 8:14 PM, Kelly McMullen > wrote: > >> You are debating with the FAA themselves. The definition says it >> has to have a type certificate. They then insert circular wording >> to say condition for safe operation means airworthy, which it does >> not. Experimental aircraft have a "special airworthiness >> certificate" because they don't meet the requirements for a >> "Standard" airworthiness certificate. Look at the required >> passenger warning on your instrument panel that states the >> aircraft does not meet all FA A airworthiness requirements. Your >> operating limitations state the very specific language to be used >> for sign-off of a condition inspection. Use other language at your >> own peril. The language is there to protect you more than anything >> else. Type certificated aircraft have very specific language for >> sign off of their annual inspection, and any inspector that values >> his certificates will use that language. >> >> Sent from my IBM-360 main frame >> >> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 9:53 AM, David Saylor >> > wrote: >> >> Maintained correctly, our airplanes are airworthy. They have >> airworthiness certificates. They fit the FAA's definition, >> which acknowledges that they needn't conform to a type >> design. 91.7 says we're not allowed to take off unless the >> plane is airworthy. >> >> If you want to substitute "airworthy" for "in a condition for >> safe operation" in your signoff, go ahead. That's about as >> similarly worded as you can get! >> >> 8130.2J >> Appendix I >> Definitions: >> Airworthy. An aircraft with a type certificate (TC) is >> airworthy when it conforms to its U.S. TC and is in a >> condition for safe operation. For the purpose of this order, a >> non-type-certificated aircraft is airworthy when it is in a >> condition for safe operation. >> >> --Dave >> >> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:50 PM Bob Turner >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> I think you will find suggested wording in your operating >> limitations document. These days the faa recommends you do >> not use the word airworthy, as that specifically means >> Is in conformance with its type certificate. Of course >> EAB aircraft dont have a type certificate. >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480425#480425 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========== >> -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: Passenger warning placard
From: "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com>
Date: May 28, 2018
I'm updating my panel, and looked up the exact wording for the passenger warning placard. Turns out the wording had recently changed. https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/10-12-2017-changes-to-passenger-warning-placards-in-new-faa-order -------- Lenny Iszak Palm City, FL 2014 RV-10, N311LZ - 400 hrs Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480479#480479 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 28, 2018
Subject: Definition of Airworthy; was: First Conditional Inspection
Vernon, I'm sorry you're being subjected to so much hot air. But the statement you were presented is incorrect and you deserve better. Airworthy is not a crime! On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 5:19 PM Kelly McMullen wrote: > You are debating with the FAA themselves. The definition says it has to > have a type certificate. They then insert circular wording to say condition > for safe operation means airworthy, which it does not. Experimental > aircraft have a "special airworthiness certificate" because they don't meet > the requirements for a "Standard" airworthiness certificate. Look at the > required passenger warning on your instrument panel that states the > aircraft does not meet all FA A airworthiness requirements. Your operating > limitations state the very specific language to be used for sign-off of a > condition inspection. Use other language at your own peril. The language is > there to protect you more than anything else. Type certificated aircraft > have very specific language for sign off of their annual inspection, and > any inspector that values his certificates will use that language. > You are debating with the FAA themselves. *I'm not arguing with what the FAA has written down. I'm trying to explain the FAA's definition of "Airworthy: An aircraft with a type certificate (TC) is airworthy when it conforms to its U.S. TC and is in a condition for safe operation. For the purpose of this order, a non-type-certificated aircraft is airworthy when it is in a condition for safe operation".* The definition says it has to have a type certificate. *No, the definition says an aircraft either has a TC or it doesn't. They pretty well covered all cases.* They then insert circular wording to say condition for safe operation means airworthy, which it does not. *There's nothing circular about it. TC'd or not, they defined "airworthy" to mean "in a condition for safe operation", so in this context, that's what it means.* Experimental aircraft have a "special airworthiness certificate" because they don't meet the requirements for a "Standard" airworthiness certificate. *That's what makes them special! But it doesn't mean they're not airworthy. In fact, if an aircraft has ANY kind of FAA airworthiness certificate, that pretty well certifies it to be, you know, airworthy.* Look at the required passenger warning on your instrument panel that states the aircraft does not meet all FA A airworthiness requirements. *I'm not sure what that means. My placard mentions federal safety regulations, but it doesn't say anything about airworthiness requirements. Does yours?* Your operating limitations state the very specific language to be used for sign-off of a condition inspection. Use other language at your own peril. *If you're afraid of the word, don't use it. I find it useful.* The language is there to protect you more than anything else. *Protect me from what? The need to easily explain my choice of words? I've always found that my actions protect me better than words.* Type certificated aircraft have very specific language for sign off of their annual inspection, and any inspector that values his certificates will use that language. *I thought we were discussing non-type-certificated aircraft and their condition inspections. What do type certificated annuals have to do with it?* *--Dave* ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Definition of Airworthy
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: May 28, 2018
It depends on where you look. In the interest of finding more clarity I researched the matter once I had time. I thought perhaps the FAA had changed its position and guidance. That does not appear to be the case. FAA Order 8900.1 Flight Standards Information Management System, which is the definitive guidance for FAA Standards offices and inspectors, says on its current version: "1/8/18 8900.1 CHG 568 VOLUME 1 GENERAL INSPECTOR GUIDANCE AND INFORMATION Indicates new/changed information. CHAPTER 1 ORDER ORGANIZATION, USE, AND REVISION Section 2 Definitions 1-26 DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are from Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 1, 1.1 or other appropriate sources. C. Airworthy. Two conditions must be met before an aircraft can be considered Airworthy: 1) The aircraft must conform to its type certificate (TC); that is, when the aircraft configuration and the components installed are consistent with the drawing, specifications, and other data that are part of the TC, and include any supplemental TC and field-approved alterations incorporated into the aircraft. 2) The aircraft must be in condition for safe operation; this refers to the condition of the aircraft relative to wear and deterioration." Notice that it says NOTHING about aircraft that lack a type certificate. So the FAA as of this date does not have consistency between its various Orders, advisory circulars, etc. What else is new? The order you cite is policy for issuing certificates, and states its definition is for the purposes of that order ONLY. The FSIMS definitions page is 6 months newer and is broader in purpose and scope. I recall not so long ago the FAA had no definition of airworthy. So you are free to do what you think is right. The conservative position to advise new repairmen is to use the exact language contained in their operating limitations. A DAR has to use the language that FAA national dictates at the time the special airworthiness certificate is issued. The statement I gave Vernon is not incorrect, it is the current FAA FSDO guidance. Calling information presented by myself and others hot air or incorrect is simply not the case. It is an unsettled area of FAA policy. To assert that your position is more correct simply has no basis. The FAA has asserted for a very long time that amateur built aircraft cannot meet the definition of airworthy. For one office to insert a different position in one order last summer is simply inconsistent with that position. Note the previous version of that same order issued two years earlier did not contain any definition of airworthy. On 5/28/2018 9:09 AM, David Saylor wrote: > Vernon, I'm sorry you're being subjected to so much hot air. But the > statement you were presented is incorrect and you deserve better. > Airworthy is not a crime! > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 29, 2018
Subject: First Condition Inspection
Sorry everyone, I did not mean to start a primer war over a log book entry. I do appreciate everyone's feedback though. It seems the Operating Limits is the best course of action on this one. The inspection went well, took a bit longer than I anticipated. Unfortunately, SB 16-03-28 jumped up and bit me. I have cracking in my rear wing spar at the hinge attach point. Of course it had to happen a month after I got out of the paint shop. *sigh* See the crack here: https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/8G7paTvP6U3sZe5LXt4PTWF9w6YFunOYR2PD7qT8BNh I am surprised it happened after only a year of flying, I guess to many Lomcovaks and Crazy Ivans. JK. If you haven't done this SB, I definitely encourage you to get it done. If it can happen after only a year of flying, I imagine that most of the older fleet might definitely start to have these stress cracks. Has anyone else had to do this repair yet? This one looks like a real pain, not looking forward to it. -- Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: May 29, 2018
Subject: Re: First Condition Inspection
Make sure you report the cracks to Van=99s. It would be nice if they can keep track of how common this becomes. If it a ffects a larger and larger portion of the fleet it may be something that wou ld be better addressing as a preventative step, but as far as I know, they s till recommend not doing the fix unless you have cracks. Your 1 year story k ind of has my curiosity up and if we hear this more, I may just want to take the step and fix it now before I have the issue. Especially on the RV14 tha t does aerobatics. Thanks for posting. Tim > On May 29, 2018, at 10:41 AM, Vernon Franklin w rote: > > Sorry everyone, I did not mean to start a primer war over a log book entry . I do appreciate everyone's feedback though. It seems the Operating Limit s is the best course of action on this one. > > The inspection went well, took a bit longer than I anticipated. > > Unfortunately, SB 16-03-28 jumped up and bit me. I have cracking in my re ar wing spar at the hinge attach point. Of course it had to happen a month a fter I got out of the paint shop. *sigh* > > See the crack here: https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/8G7paTvP6U3sZe5LXt 4PTWF9w6YFunOYR2PD7qT8BNh > > I am surprised it happened after only a year of flying, I guess to many Lo mcovaks and Crazy Ivans. JK. > > If you haven't done this SB, I definitely encourage you to get it done. I f it can happen after only a year of flying, I imagine that most of the olde r fleet might definitely start to have these stress cracks. > > Has anyone else had to do this repair yet? This one looks like a real pai n, not looking forward to it. > > > > -- > Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com>
Date: May 29, 2018
Subject: Re: First Condition Inspection
I have inspected dozens of RV=99s and have never found a crack there. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse(at)saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 Sent from my iPhone > On May 29, 2018, at 12:16 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > Make sure you report the cracks to Van=99s. > It would be nice if they can keep track of how common this becomes. If it affects a larger and larger portion of the fleet it may be something that w ould be better addressing as a preventative step, but as far as I know, they still recommend not doing the fix unless you have cracks. Your 1 year stor y kind of has my curiosity up and if we hear this more, I may just want to t ake the step and fix it now before I have the issue. Especially on the RV14 t hat does aerobatics. > > Thanks for posting. > Tim > >> On May 29, 2018, at 10:41 AM, Vernon Franklin wrote: >> >> Sorry everyone, I did not mean to start a primer war over a log book entr y. I do appreciate everyone's feedback though. It seems the Operating Limi ts is the best course of action on this one. >> >> The inspection went well, took a bit longer than I anticipated. >> >> Unfortunately, SB 16-03-28 jumped up and bit me. I have cracking in my r ear wing spar at the hinge attach point. Of course it had to happen a month after I got out of the paint shop. *sigh* >> >> See the crack here: https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/8G7paTvP6U3sZe5LX t4PTWF9w6YFunOYR2PD7qT8BNh >> >> I am surprised it happened after only a year of flying, I guess to many L omcovaks and Crazy Ivans. JK. >> >> If you haven't done this SB, I definitely encourage you to get it done. I f it can happen after only a year of flying, I imagine that most of the olde r fleet might definitely start to have these stress cracks. >> >> Has anyone else had to do this repair yet? This one looks like a real pa in, not looking forward to it. >> >> >> >> -- >> Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 29, 2018
Subject: Re: First Condition Inspection
Oooff. That=99s on the interior side correct? Phil Sent from my iPhone > On May 29, 2018, at 10:41 AM, Vernon Franklin w rote: > > Sorry everyone, I did not mean to start a primer war over a log book entry . I do appreciate everyone's feedback though. It seems the Operating Limit s is the best course of action on this one. > > The inspection went well, took a bit longer than I anticipated. > > Unfortunately, SB 16-03-28 jumped up and bit me. I have cracking in my re ar wing spar at the hinge attach point. Of course it had to happen a month a fter I got out of the paint shop. *sigh* > > See the crack here: https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/8G7paTvP6U3sZe5LXt 4PTWF9w6YFunOYR2PD7qT8BNh > > I am surprised it happened after only a year of flying, I guess to many Lo mcovaks and Crazy Ivans. JK. > > If you haven't done this SB, I definitely encourage you to get it done. I f it can happen after only a year of flying, I imagine that most of the olde r fleet might definitely start to have these stress cracks. > > Has anyone else had to do this repair yet? This one looks like a real pai n, not looking forward to it. > > > > -- > Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 29, 2018
Subject: Re: First Condition Inspection
Good eye! I've looked at this on a couple different planes. No signs yet. I was pretty sure it wasn't going to be an RV-10 thing. What did you use to see it? Just a light and mirror, camera, endoscope on your phone? Nice picture too. Thanks for the post. --Dave On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:47 AM Vernon Franklin wrote: > Sorry everyone, I did not mean to start a primer war over a log book > entry. I do appreciate everyone's feedback though. It seems the Operating > Limits is the best course of action on this one. > > The inspection went well, took a bit longer than I anticipated. > > Unfortunately, SB 16-03-28 jumped up and bit me. I have cracking in my > rear wing spar at the hinge attach point. Of course it had to happen a > month after I got out of the paint shop. *sigh* > > See the crack here: > https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/8G7paTvP6U3sZe5LXt4PTWF9w6YFunOYR2PD7qT8BNh > > I am surprised it happened after only a year of flying, I guess to many > Lomcovaks and Crazy Ivans. JK. > > If you haven't done this SB, I definitely encourage you to get it done. > If it can happen after only a year of flying, I imagine that most of the > older fleet might definitely start to have these stress cracks. > > Has anyone else had to do this repair yet? This one looks like a real > pain, not looking forward to it. > > > -- > Vernon Franklin > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sun Visor
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: May 30, 2018
I think a DIY/lower cost effort is good development. I would also recommend the Blue Sky visors which I've installed and flown with for 1,000 hours. Nice design, reasonable $$ but still pricey. They work, well. However, do spend some time with the mounting point. Things need to be square and tight - takes a bit of effort given that nothing is tight or square around those confounded #$$%#!! doors. With that said, this thread just caused me to blow off some $$$ on the Rosens. I did not spend quite enough time with that single point mount and now my co-pilot visor tends to sag in bumps. Both require a bit of handling when setting them in extreme but very useful positions. I'm tired of fooling with something that is always in sight and directly in my line of vision. The 2 point mounts on the Rosens would seem to alleviate my mounting issue. Otherwise I hope they work in a way commensurate with the price. At some point, I will have a pair of used Blue Skies that work to get rid of. Bill "sometimes buying plane-priced stuff for Tigressa just feels good" Watson (or maybe reading Flying's review of the new G500 effected me in ways I'm not completely aware of) On 5/23/2018 11:16 AM, Greg McFarlane wrote: > > Ive got the visors that Blue Sky make specifically for the RV10 and would recommend them. They are made well and they fit and work extremely well, and look good. Fitting was simple with each side only needing one hole in the pillar and secured by the one screw. After the initial fit I applied release agent to the square mounting peg and built up around the peg about 3/4inch with a epoxy/flox mix which gave more security and support to the mount and also a more finished look, IMHO Cheers from Western Australia > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480345#480345 > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: symmetrical panel and backup
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: May 30, 2018
Venturi icing when, not if; For those not buying that possibility given the lack of a venturi, think insects in the pitot. Normally one would know of any blockage at takeoff, as I did 2 flight ago. However a few years ago I had sporadic problem with 'something' that would cause my AP to disco because of stall speed detection (??!!). Finally I had a simple clear cut 'no airspeed' indication while in IMC. I declared and landed at nearest airport. What happened? I had a dead bug or bugs in my always-on heated pitot. They weren't completely blocking things but when I ran thru some moisture they would swell and block my airspeed. Once in the dry, and possibly due to the heat, the insect carcass mass would shrink and operations would return to normal. Conclusion; GPS speed is nice to have too. Bill "still training to ALWAYS put the pitot cover on, even at home in the hangar" Watson On 5/30/2015 4:52 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > What you choose for backup may be dependent on whether your > pitot/static lines run to ADAHRS in rear of plane (dynon Skyview) or > if it is at the instrument panel. The GRT mini requires hook up to > those lines, and you get benefit of actual airspeed and altitude. > Dynon D1/D2 needs no hookup, but only gives you GPS derived ground > speed and GPS track and GPS altitude. > > All better than nothing, but not quite as good as barometric and pitot > derived numbers. > > Huge change in redundancy from when I was flying in non-radar areas > with venturi powered gyros and electric turn coordinator, with single > nav/com/ils and single ADF. > That gave some blood pressure rise when the venturis iced up. Key > word is when, not if. Fortunately the old AN gyros would operate down > to less than 1" of vacuum, so you got warning when the vacuum started > trending below 4" > All with one alternator and one battery for electrons. > On 5/30/2015 8:39 AM, Rocketman1988 wrote: >> >> "... don't think I need the same level of redundancy in my RV-10, but >> I really do want something like the GRT mini..." >> >> Exactly. I am current;y looking at an AFS EFIS with the GRT Mini >> backup. Seems like a good compromise. If the weather is so bad that >> I need triple redundant systems, then I will probably just delay a >> bit...or go on the airlines... >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442808#442808 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 30, 2018
Subject: Re: First Condition Inspection
So, I was on the phone with builder support yesterday, trying to work out a game plan. As they had not seen a crack this bad before on the rear spar webbing. He asked me to go in and clean the area the best I could with a shop towel, and send some better pictures to them for further analysis. Word of advice, wipe down any cracks you find straight away. It will make sure you don't have a panic attack and worry all day for nothing. Yup, it was a dusty cob web... While slightly embarrassed, I am so relieved it was nothing. This is one of those life lessons I am going to share with the grand-kids one day. Vernon On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:58 PM David Saylor wrote: > Good eye! I've looked at this on a couple different planes. No signs > yet. I was pretty sure it wasn't going to be an RV-10 thing. > > What did you use to see it? Just a light and mirror, camera, endoscope on > your phone? Nice picture too. Thanks for the post. > > --Dave > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:47 AM Vernon Franklin > wrote: > >> Sorry everyone, I did not mean to start a primer war over a log book >> entry. I do appreciate everyone's feedback though. It seems the Operating >> Limits is the best course of action on this one. >> >> The inspection went well, took a bit longer than I anticipated. >> >> Unfortunately, SB 16-03-28 jumped up and bit me. I have cracking in my >> rear wing spar at the hinge attach point. Of course it had to happen a >> month after I got out of the paint shop. *sigh* >> >> See the crack here: >> https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/8G7paTvP6U3sZe5LXt4PTWF9w6YFunOYR2PD7qT8BNh >> >> I am surprised it happened after only a year of flying, I guess to many >> Lomcovaks and Crazy Ivans. JK. >> >> If you haven't done this SB, I definitely encourage you to get it done. >> If it can happen after only a year of flying, I imagine that most of the >> older fleet might definitely start to have these stress cracks. >> >> Has anyone else had to do this repair yet? This one looks like a real >> pain, not looking forward to it. >> >> >> >> -- >> Vernon Franklin >> > -- Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Philips" <jack(at)bedfordlandings.com>
Subject: First Condition Inspection
Date: May 30, 2018
Vernon, looking at the phot I can see why you were concerned. What kind of spider lays a web from the center of one rivet to the center of another? Good eye, and glad it was nothing. Jack Phillips #40610 =93 Just hung the engine mount this morning Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vernon Franklin Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 8:39 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: First Condition Inspection So, I was on the phone with builder support yesterday, trying to work out a game plan. As they had not seen a crack this bad before on the rear spar webbing. He asked me to go in and clean the area the best I could with a shop towel, and send some better pictures to them for further analysis. Word of advice, wipe down any cracks you find straight away. It will make sure you don't have a panic attack and worry all day for nothing. Yup, it was a dusty cob web... While slightly embarrassed, I am so relieved it was nothing. This is one of those life lessons I am going to share with the grand-kids one day. Vernon On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:58 PM David Saylor > wrote: Good eye! I've looked at this on a couple different planes. No signs yet. I was pretty sure it wasn't going to be an RV-10 thing. What did you use to see it? Just a light and mirror, camera, endoscope on your phone? Nice picture too. Thanks for the post. --Dave On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:47 AM Vernon Franklin > wrote: Sorry everyone, I did not mean to start a primer war over a log book entry. I do appreciate everyone's feedback though. It seems the Operating Limits is the best course of action on this one. The inspection went well, took a bit longer than I anticipated. Unfortunately, SB 16-03-28 jumped up and bit me. I have cracking in my rear wing spar at the hinge attach point. Of course it had to happen a month after I got out of the paint shop. *sigh* See the crack here: https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/8G7paTvP6U3sZe5LXt4PTWF9w6YFunOYR2PD7 qT8BNh I am surprised it happened after only a year of flying, I guess to many Lomcovaks and Crazy Ivans. JK. If you haven't done this SB, I definitely encourage you to get it done. If it can happen after only a year of flying, I imagine that most of the older fleet might definitely start to have these stress cracks. Has anyone else had to do this repair yet? This one looks like a real pain, not looking forward to it. -- Vernon Franklin -- Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 30, 2018
Subject: Re: First Condition Inspection
"What kind of spider lays a web from the center of one rivet to the center of another?" Crack widow? On Wed, May 30, 2018, 06:23 Jack Philips wrote: > Vernon, looking at the phot I can see why you were concerned. What kind > of spider lays a web from the center of one rivet to the center of anothe r? > > > Good eye, and glad it was nothing. > > > Jack Phillips > > #40610 =93 Just hung the engine mount this morning > > Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia > > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: > owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Vernon Franklin > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2018 8:39 AM > *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: First Condition Inspection > > > So, I was on the phone with builder support yesterday, trying to work out > a game plan. As they had not seen a crack this bad before on the rear sp ar > webbing. > > He asked me to go in and clean the area the best I could with a shop > towel, and send some better pictures to them for further analysis. > > > Word of advice, wipe down any cracks you find straight away. It will mak e > sure you don't have a panic attack and worry all day for nothing. > > Yup, it was a dusty cob web... > > > While slightly embarrassed, I am so relieved it was nothing. This is one > of those life lessons I am going to share with the grand-kids one day. > > > Vernon > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:58 PM David Saylor > wrote: > > Good eye! I've looked at this on a couple different planes. No signs > yet. I was pretty sure it wasn't going to be an RV-10 thing. > > > What did you use to see it? Just a light and mirror, camera, endoscope o n > your phone? Nice picture too. Thanks for the post. > > > --Dave > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:47 AM Vernon Franklin > wrote: > > Sorry everyone, I did not mean to start a primer war over a log book > entry. I do appreciate everyone's feedback though. It seems the Operati ng > Limits is the best course of action on this one. > > > The inspection went well, took a bit longer than I anticipated. > > > Unfortunately, SB 16-03-28 jumped up and bit me. I have cracking in my > rear wing spar at the hinge attach point. Of course it had to happen a > month after I got out of the paint shop. *sigh* > > > See the crack here: > https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/8G7paTvP6U3sZe5LXt4PTWF9w6YFunOYR2PD7 qT8BNh > > > I am surprised it happened after only a year of flying, I guess to many > Lomcovaks and Crazy Ivans. JK. > > > If you haven't done this SB, I definitely encourage you to get it done. > If it can happen after only a year of flying, I imagine that most of the > older fleet might definitely start to have these stress cracks. > > > Has anyone else had to do this repair yet? This one looks like a real > pain, not looking forward to it. > > > -- > > Vernon Franklin > > > -- > > Vernon Franklin > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 30, 2018
Subject: Re: First Condition Inspection
https://media.giphy.com/media/SUeUCn53naadO/giphy.gif On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:07 AM David Saylor wrote : > "What kind of spider lays a web from the center of one rivet to the > center of another?" > > Crack widow? > > On Wed, May 30, 2018, 06:23 Jack Philips wrote : > >> Vernon, looking at the phot I can see why you were concerned. What kind >> of spider lays a web from the center of one rivet to the center of anoth er? >> >> >> >> Good eye, and glad it was nothing. >> >> >> >> Jack Phillips >> >> #40610 =93 Just hung the engine mount this morning >> >> Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia >> >> >> >> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: >> owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Vernon Franklin >> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2018 8:39 AM >> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com >> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: First Condition Inspection >> >> >> >> So, I was on the phone with builder support yesterday, trying to work ou t >> a game plan. As they had not seen a crack this bad before on the rear s par >> webbing. >> >> He asked me to go in and clean the area the best I could with a shop >> towel, and send some better pictures to them for further analysis. >> >> >> >> Word of advice, wipe down any cracks you find straight away. It will >> make sure you don't have a panic attack and worry all day for nothing. >> >> Yup, it was a dusty cob web... >> >> >> >> While slightly embarrassed, I am so relieved it was nothing. This is on e >> of those life lessons I am going to share with the grand-kids one day. >> >> >> >> Vernon >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:58 PM David Saylor >> wrote: >> >> Good eye! I've looked at this on a couple different planes. No signs >> yet. I was pretty sure it wasn't going to be an RV-10 thing. >> >> >> >> What did you use to see it? Just a light and mirror, camera, endoscope >> on your phone? Nice picture too. Thanks for the post. >> >> >> >> --Dave >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:47 AM Vernon Franklin < >> vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Sorry everyone, I did not mean to start a primer war over a log book >> entry. I do appreciate everyone's feedback though. It seems the Operat ing >> Limits is the best course of action on this one. >> >> >> >> The inspection went well, took a bit longer than I anticipated. >> >> >> >> Unfortunately, SB 16-03-28 jumped up and bit me. I have cracking in my >> rear wing spar at the hinge attach point. Of course it had to happen a >> month after I got out of the paint shop. *sigh* >> >> >> >> See the crack here: >> https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/8G7paTvP6U3sZe5LXt4PTWF9w6YFunOYR2PD 7qT8BNh >> >> >> >> I am surprised it happened after only a year of flying, I guess to many >> Lomcovaks and Crazy Ivans. JK. >> >> >> >> If you haven't done this SB, I definitely encourage you to get it done. >> If it can happen after only a year of flying, I imagine that most of the >> older fleet might definitely start to have these stress cracks. >> >> >> >> Has anyone else had to do this repair yet? This one looks like a real >> pain, not looking forward to it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Vernon Franklin >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Vernon Franklin >> > -- Vernon Franklin ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Kit Log Pro
From: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com>
Date: May 31, 2018
I have kit log pro and am nearing the end of my build. I want to generate reports but I keep getting errors from the program saying that "the header or footer exceeds the page length" Needless to say the report isn't generated. Has anyone had this problem and know the solution? I have sent numerous emails to the support address and only received one reply saying to try 3 new report files, which I did. It didn't solve the issue and I have sent several emails asking for help with no response. I have nearly 2000 hours documented and no way to report it! Please help! Bob Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480533#480533 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com>
Date: Jun 01, 2018
Subject: Re: Kit Log Pro
I had problems with my reports like that. In the short term to get around that problem I printed pages off the Kitlog Web page. If you get onto Matronics direct I think they will be able to help. Cheers John MacCallum RV10 41016 VH DUU > On 1 Jun 2018, at 05:01, Rocketman1988 wrote: > > > I have kit log pro and am nearing the end of my build. I want to generate reports but I keep getting errors from the program saying that "the header or footer exceeds the page length" > > Needless to say the report isn't generated. Has anyone had this problem and know the solution? > > I have sent numerous emails to the support address and only received one reply saying to try 3 new report files, which I did. It didn't solve the issue and I have sent several emails asking for help with no response. > > I have nearly 2000 hours documented and no way to report it! Please help! > > Bob > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480533#480533 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Private Pilot Training
Date: Jun 02, 2018
Sorry to light up an old thread but I figured this was a good way to share some news. If you remember, we were talking about doing Private Pilot training in the RV-10. Well, this week my daughter took her private checkride in the RV-14, and she flies both airplanes. I quick did a write-up here if you are interested. http://www.myrv14.com/N14YT/20180529_New_Pilot/index.html One more special mention...thanks once again, Bob Turner! Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Private Pilot Training
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Date: Jun 02, 2018
Congratulations, Daniella! And Tim, about time to start working on the CFII - so you can skip that first renewal. And as a bonus, do it in your own plane. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480596#480596 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Getting Started
From: "barryalen1992" <barryalen1992(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 05, 2018
Hello guys, my name is Barry. It's nice to meet everyone here. I'm currently living in LA. Hope to make as many friends as possible. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480671#480671 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ed Kranz <ed.kranz(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 07, 2018
Subject: Re: Private Pilot Training
I agree. Tim really needs that CFII! I've got dibs on the first 3 student slots (after Danielle, of course!) On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Bob Turner wrote: > > Congratulations, Daniella! > > And Tim, about time to start working on the CFII - so you can skip that > first renewal. And as a bonus, do it in your own plane. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480596#480596 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Date: Jun 07, 2018
Subject: Re: Private Pilot Training
I don=99t know when, but reasonably soon I will get started on it. I h ave a lot to freshen up on, but I will almost certainly do the written this f all, and I would like to maybe be done by the end of the year so that I can s kip a flight review as well. I think I=99m current enough on general s kills, although I find it hard to get stick time these days. ;) Tim > On Jun 7, 2018, at 2:51 PM, Ed Kranz wrote: > > I agree. Tim really needs that CFII! I've got dibs on the first 3 student s lots (after Danielle, of course!) > >> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Bob Turner wrot e: >> >> Congratulations, Daniella! >> >> And Tim, about time to start working on the CFII - so you can skip that f irst renewal. And as a bonus, do it in your own plane. >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480596#480596 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========================= >> -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 >> ========================= >> >> >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Private Pilot Training
From: "nukeflyboy" <flymoore(at)charter.net>
Date: Jun 08, 2018
Congratulations Daniella! That is quite an accomplishment at 17 and gives you life-long bragging rights. Good job, Dad. We know how proud you are. -------- Dave Moore RV-6 built and sold RV-10 built and flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=480737#480737 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 09, 2018
From: <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Contact info fo Galager Insurance Co.
I need to contact Gallagher insurance co but Im on the road and dont have my usual information. Anybody have contact information for them? Thanks, Albert Gardner, RV-10 N991RV Yuma, AZ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lester <brian.lester(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 09, 2018
Subject: Re: Contact info fo Galager Insurance Co.
R2FsbGFnaGVyIEF2aWF0aW9uDQo4NzctNDc1LTU4NjANCkFydGh1ciBKLiBHYWxsYWdoZXIgUmlz ayBNYW5hZ2VtZW50IFNlcnZpY2VzLCBJbmMuDQooRm9ybWVybHkgTmF0aW9uQWlyIEF2aWF0aW9u IEluc3VyYW5jZSkNCnd3dy5hamcuY29tL2xpZ2h0YWlyY3JhZnQgLyB3d3cuYWpnLmNvbQ0KT24g U2F0LCBKdW4gOSwgMjAxOCBhdCA0OjAxIFBNIDxpYnNwdWRAcm9hZHJ1bm5lci5jb20+IHdyb3Rl Og0KDQo+IC0tPiBSVjEwLUxpc3QgbWVzc2FnZSBwb3N0ZWQgYnk6IDxpYnNwdWRAcm9hZHJ1bm5l ci5jb20+DQo+DQo+IEkgbmVlZCB0byBjb250YWN0IEdhbGxhZ2hlciBpbnN1cmFuY2UgY28gYnV0 IEnigJltIG9uIHRoZSByb2FkIGFuZCBkb27igJl0DQo+IGhhdmUgbXkgdXN1YWwgaW5mb3JtYXRp b24uIEFueWJvZHkgaGF2ZSBjb250YWN0IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGZvciB0aGVtPw0KPiBUaGFua3Ms DQo+IEFsYmVydCBHYXJkbmVyLA0KPiBSVi0xMCBOOTkxUlYNCj4gWXVtYSwgQVoNCj4NCj4gXy09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT0NCj4gXy09ICAgICAgICAgIC0gVGhlIFJWMTAtTGlzdCBFbWFpbCBGb3J1bSAtDQo+IF8tPSBV c2UgdGhlIE1hdHJvbmljcyBMaXN0IEZlYXR1cmVzIE5hdmlnYXRvciB0byBicm93c2UNCj4gXy09 IHRoZSBtYW55IExpc3QgdXRpbGl0aWVzIHN1Y2ggYXMgTGlzdCBVbi9TdWJzY3JpcHRpb24sDQo+ IF8tPSBBcmNoaXZlIFNlYXJjaCAmIERvd25sb2FkLCA3LURheSBCcm93c2UsIENoYXQsIEZBUSwN Cj4gXy09IFBob3Rvc2hhcmUsIGFuZCBtdWNoIG11Y2ggbW9yZToNCj4gXy09DQo+IF8tPSAgIC0t PiBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vTmF2aWdhdG9yP1JWMTAtTGlzdA0KPiBfLT0NCj4g Xy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT0NCj4gXy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLSBNQVRST05JQ1MgV0VCIEZPUlVNUyAtDQo+IF8t PSBTYW1lIGdyZWF0IGNvbnRlbnQgYWxzbyBhdmFpbGFibGUgdmlhIHRoZSBXZWIgRm9ydW1zIQ0K PiBfLT0NCj4gXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly9mb3J1bXMubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbQ0KPiBfLT0NCj4g Xy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT0NCj4gXy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAtIE5FVyBNQVRST05JQ1MgTElTVCBXSUtJIC0NCj4g Xy09IEFkZCBzb21lIGluZm8gdG8gdGhlIE1hdHJvbmljcyBFbWFpbCBMaXN0IFdpa2khDQo+IF8t PSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vd2lraS5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQo+IF8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09DQo+IF8tPSAgICAgICAg ICAgICAtIExpc3QgQ29udHJpYnV0aW9uIFdlYiBTaXRlIC0NCj4gXy09ICBUaGFuayB5b3UgZm9y IHlvdXIgZ2VuZXJvdXMgc3VwcG9ydCENCj4gXy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgLU1hdHQgRHJhbGxlLCBMaXN0IEFkbWluLg0KPiBfLT0gICAtLT4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRy b25pY3MuY29tL2NvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbg0KPiBfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KPg0KPg0KPg0KPg0K ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 10, 2018
Subject: Fuel valve siphoning across?
I had a first time experience this weekend. We flew into Tradewind airport (Amarillo) for the weekend and I parked the airplane on a ramp that was slightly sloped. Topped off the tanks, tied it down, and left it for a few days. We got ready to leave today and I popped open the uphill-most tank to inspect fuel levels and a good amount of fuel had disappeared. My first thought was that it was stolen. The downhill tank was full to the rim and dripping fuel at the vent. Judging from the stains, it appears fuel was dripping out of the vent the entire weekend. So, apparently I was cross feeding fuel from the uphill tank to the downhill tank, then from the downhill tank out the vent line to the ground. I topped off the uphill tank with 2.8 gal. When full, the vent on that tank dripped fuel, so I knew its was not blocked. The only path would be leakage inside the andair fuel valve body. I have always left the fuel valve on the last tank used, as opposed to moving it to the off position. It just seems safer that way as its one less thing to miss that could kill you. Heres the question, have any of you see siphoning across the andair fuel selector valve in the -10? Is that normal or am I dealing with a leaky valve? Phil Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Leffler <bob(at)thelefflers.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel valve siphoning across?
Date: Jun 10, 2018
I would have thought that to be physically impossible. Even with a tank selected, the fuel path is to the engine, not the other ta nk. Keep us posted on what you find. Get Outlook for iOS ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com <owner-rv10-list-server@matronic s.com> on behalf of Phillip Perry Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 7:00:22 PM Subject: RV10-List: Fuel valve siphoning across? I had a first time experience this weekend. We flew into Tradewind airport (Amarillo) for the weekend and I parked the airplane on a ramp that was sl ightly sloped. Topped off the tanks, tied it down, and left it for a few days. We got ready to leave today and I popped open the uphill-most tank to inspe ct fuel levels and a good amount of fuel had disappeared. My first thought was that it was stolen. The downhill tank was full to the rim and dripping fuel at the vent. Judgi ng from the stains, it appears fuel was dripping out of the vent the entire weekend.


April 09, 2018 - June 10, 2018

RV10-Archive.digest.vol-nc