RV10-Archive.digest.vol-bo
October 14, 2006 - October 28, 2006
Cirrus is far greater than the RV-10?
Link McGarity
#40622
FD38, Wellington, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | engines....TIO-360 |
Billy,
Have you considered a turbocharged Lycoming TIO-360?
You can configure it to put out 230 bhp up to 20,000ft.
This is the same bhp per cylinder as the certified Lycoming TIO-540 at 350
bhp.
Above 6,000 ft you will have more power than a 260 bhp IO-540.
It comes in close to, or less than, the weight of an IO-540.
The extra space in the front of the cowl leaves room for a nice cooling
plenum diffuser!
The trade off is giving up 20-30 bhp on take off and then proportionally
less up to 6,000ft.
Or a turbo-normalized TIO-540 @ 260 bhp to 20,000ft.
With this you could carry extra baggage all the time!
ERic--
Avionics
----Original Message Follows----
From: billykay1(at)aol.com
Subject: RV10-List: engines
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:40:04 -0400
Hello,
Has anybody (besides me) considered putting a 4 cylinder lyc (or
derivative) in the 10?
Billy Kehmeier
tail kit 574
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web,
free AOL Mail and more.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
The Cirrus uses a 210 Continental IO-360 6 cyl that is de-rated to 200
hp. That is essentially what is in Van's #2 demo. The plane was
designed to handle that engine, but there wasn't enough demand for
Vans to produce a FWF kit for it. It is a heavier engine than the Lyc
4 cyl. IO360, but not by a lot, maybe 20-30 lbs. It does take some CG
adjustment to switch between those two engines, as Cessna has done in
the 172, where they produced T41 with the Continental, and the current
172 with the Lyc, and the early 172 with O-300 Cont 145 hp. Mooney's
201 vs 231 is similar, but the 231 has both heavier Cont engine and wt
of turbo charger install up front, making it more nose heavy.
On 10/14/06, Link McGarity wrote:
>
> 4 cyl eng in RV-10? Me. Van's. But flying off grass in FL in the summer,
> probably need the bigger motor. Have some Cirrus SR-20 owners/neighbors
> that can speak to this subject, although I think the wing loading on the
> Cirrus is far greater than the RV-10?
>
> Link McGarity
> #40622
> FD38, Wellington, FL
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Where to start with quickbuild. |
Okay, I am double cheating on this topic.
I remember a post sometime back about where to begin on the plans if you
have the quickbuild wings and fuse. Glassing in the tail fins almost
finished. The VS front fairing was short and required addition to mate with
rudder counterbalance arm.
Looked in the archives and can't find it. Any recollection, anyone?????
JOhn G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ajhauter(at)yahoo.com |
The new Superior XP-400 rated at 220 HP is worth looking into if the
CG issues can be addressed. What are you considering?
_________________________
Hello,
Has anybody (besides me) considered putting a 4 cylinder lyc (or
derivative) in
the 10?
Billy Kehmeier
tail kit 574
______________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Where to start with quickbuild. |
QB wings consider putting together a wing stand.
here <http://lrosen.nerv10.com/Construct/WingStand/index.html>
and here <http://www.brinkmeyers.net/Photos/Aircraft/Wings/target19.html>
Fuselage stand here <http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/fusestand/index.html>
John Gonzalez wrote:
>
> Okay, I am double cheating on this topic.
>
> I remember a post sometime back about where to begin on the plans if
> you have the quickbuild wings and fuse. Glassing in the tail fins
> almost finished. The VS front fairing was short and required addition
> to mate with rudder counterbalance arm.
>
> Looked in the archives and can't find it. Any recollection, anyone?????
>
> JOhn G.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining |
From my archives.
Robert G. Wright wrote:
>
> Bill, good luck on this one.
>
> When my QB Wings and Fuse arrived, I went through the plans as
> thoroughly as I thought I could, noting what was left to do, but
> didnt make a separate list. Even if I had, Ive found lately that
> Ive had to go back and do things that I overlooked, and then go back
> and fit the thing I was working on in the first place! Its not bad
> because its kind of a checks and balances, but it sure throws you off
> of your rhythm when it happens.
>
> For me, these incidental things just get done and Ive not tried to
> annotate them when I come across them, because its all in the name of
> getting back to the original task. So a good, thorough, complete list
> seems like pie in the sky. There are parts of the plans, however, that
> do say for Slowbuild, do this, for QB, do this. Thats not everywhere
> in the plans, but seems to be the authors choice when he wrote that
> section. Probably wouldnt be hard for Vans to make a separate set of
> plans since the QB stuff is done the same way every time, but then we
> wouldnt have the slow-build sections to reference in case we needed
> to redo a part or needed to modify something to suit our own missions.
>
> Rob Wright
>
> #392 QB Wings
>
> Tru-Trak Servos delivered yesterday!
>
> Finishing kit delivery next Thurs!
>
> Engine paid for awaiting delivery!
>
> Need more money/time/arms!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Reining
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:42 PM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining
>
> Has anyone posted a detailed list of what has already been done, and
> what remains to be done, for the QB wings and fuselage? Ideally
> something that references the plans, such as: for the wings, sections
> xx all complete, steps yy in section zz. need to be finished. I
> checked the archive, but had no luck.
>
> Bill Reining going to OSH all week
>
> Tail cone
>
> 40514
>
> N475R reserved
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Where to start on QB fuse? |
and also from my archives
Larry Rosen wrote:
>
> Yes, just like the QB wings there are things undone.
> Start by removing all the temporary pop rivets on the floor boards,
> remove temporary pop rivets in the forward upper fuselage and get it
> out of the way. Remove all the close out panels. Remove the seat
> cover and seat floor. Remove the F1043D cover panel in front of the
> seat. Soon the quickbuild will look allot less complete. :-)
>
> You will need to remove the landing gear mounts so you can put the
> cabin floor in.
>
> There is a nut plate that goes on the F-1040 upper fuse channel that
> needs to be installed. Much easier to do before you rivet the F1042E
> gusset in place.
>
> Seat back brace needs to be pop riveted in place (remove the temp pop
> rivets).
>
> Probably forgot some stuff, but its a start.
>
> Larry
> http://lrosen.nerv10.com
>
> Dan Masys wrote:
>
>>
>> With the wings essentially done, I started looking at the fuselage
>> sections of the plans. As far as I can tell, everything has been
>> done up through Section 29, and I should start with installing the
>> steps (Section 30). Is that correct, or are there details of the
>> sections 25-29 that are left undone by those talented folks in the
>> Philippines?
>>
>> (Certainly would be nice if Vans would publish some
>> quickbuild-specific instructions.)
>>
>> -Dan Masys
>> #40448
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | need AOL Communicator |
| From: | philwhite9(at)aol.com |
Just had to replace a dead hard disk, and lost the AOL Communicator software that
allowed me to automatically sort RV-10 email digests into the RV folder. AOL
no longer lists it as a download.
Anyone have a copy of the software they could send me?
Philwhite9(at)aol.com (#40220 Mazda 20B in an RV-10, doors)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Priming in a confined space |
| From: | philwhite9(at)aol.com |
Les: I am in a garage, with bedrooms above, and a wife who is very sensitive to toxins with allergies. My research led to Aircraft Finishing Systems, http://www.aircraftfinishing.com/primer-sealer.htm, the only source of water-based finishes that aren't toxic. I am very satisfied with their primer that I've used on all my interior mating surfaces. I expect to paint the exterior with their products.
Phil (40220) doors & windows
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Maib <dmaib(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining |
I called and asked Vans about such a list. The answer was that they
wanted the builder to have to read all of the plans as if it were a
slow build. This is to educate the builder about how the whole thing
is built. Seems like a reasonable idea, but I would still like to
know just what has and what has not been done on my QB.
David Maib
#40559
tailcone
On Oct 14, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Larry Rosen wrote:
From my archives.
Robert G. Wright wrote:
>
> Bill, good luck on this one.
>
> When my QB Wings and Fuse arrived, I went through the plans as
> thoroughly as I thought I could, noting what was left to do, but
> didnt make a separate list. Even if I had, Ive found lately that
> Ive had to go back and do things that I overlooked, and then go
> back and fit the thing I was working on in the first place! Its
> not bad because its kind of a checks and balances, but it sure
> throws you off of your rhythm when it happens.
>
> For me, these incidental things just get done and Ive not tried
> to annotate them when I come across them, because its all in the
> name of getting back to the original task. So a good, thorough,
> complete list seems like pie in the sky. There are parts of the
> plans, however, that do say for Slowbuild, do this, for QB, do
> this. Thats not everywhere in the plans, but seems to be the
> authors choice when he wrote that section. Probably wouldnt be
> hard for Vans to make a separate set of plans since the QB stuff is
> done the same way every time, but then we wouldnt have the slow-
> build sections to reference in case we needed to redo a part or
> needed to modify something to suit our own missions.
>
> Rob Wright
>
> #392 QB Wings
>
> Tru-Trak Servos delivered yesterday!
>
> Finishing kit delivery next Thurs!
>
> Engine paid for awaiting delivery!
>
> Need more money/time/arms!
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-
> list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Reining
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:42 PM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining
>
> Has anyone posted a detailed list of what has already been done,
> and what remains to be done, for the QB wings and fuselage? Ideally
> something that references the plans, such as: for the wings,
> sections xx all complete, steps yy in section zz. need to be
> finished. I checked the archive, but had no luck.
>
> Bill Reining going to OSH all week
>
> Tail cone
>
> 40514
>
> N475R reserved
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining |
Call Vans again. I spoke with one of the girls (Jessica?) about some kind
of flowchart that we were talking about on the list. She had an idea of
what I meant and sent it out to me hardcopy (I have no scanner. It's a
simple flowchart with all the sections in gray or white defining what the
builder still has to do. Problem is, there are still portions of the QB
stuff done in the Philippines that either was not completed or not completed
correctly. So in short, yes you really should sit out with your plans
beside your wings/fuse and go step by step. As agonizing as it is, at the
end of three hours when you know exactly what you still have to do, you can
realize that 3 hours of verifying is better than 3 or more months of
monotonous building. They still leave the funner stuff for you to do, and
it's still within the 51% spirit and letter of the law.
Rob Wright
#392 Buildus interruptus for sister's wedding...
Moving workshop to the hangar when I get back to join the tailcone to the
fuse!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Maib
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining
I called and asked Vans about such a list. The answer was that they
wanted the builder to have to read all of the plans as if it were a
slow build. This is to educate the builder about how the whole thing
is built. Seems like a reasonable idea, but I would still like to
know just what has and what has not been done on my QB.
David Maib
#40559
tailcone
On Oct 14, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Larry Rosen wrote:
From my archives.
Robert G. Wright wrote:
>
> Bill, good luck on this one.
>
> When my QB Wings and Fuse arrived, I went through the plans as
> thoroughly as I thought I could, noting what was left to do, but
> didn't make a separate list. Even if I had, I've found lately that
> I've had to go back and do things that I overlooked, and then go
> back and fit the thing I was working on in the first place! It's
> not bad because it's kind of a checks and balances, but it sure
> throws you off of your rhythm when it happens.
>
> For me, these incidental things just "get done" and I've not tried
> to annotate them when I come across them, because it's all in the
> name of getting back to the original task. So a good, thorough,
> complete list seems like pie in the sky. There are parts of the
> plans, however, that do say for Slowbuild, do this, for QB, do
> this. That's not everywhere in the plans, but seems to be the
> author's choice when he wrote that section. Probably wouldn't be
> hard for Vans to make a separate set of plans since the QB stuff is
> done the same way every time, but then we wouldn't have the slow-
> build sections to reference in case we needed to redo a part or
> needed to modify something to suit our own missions.
>
> Rob Wright
>
> #392 QB Wings
>
> Tru-Trak Servos delivered yesterday!
>
> Finishing kit delivery next Thurs!
>
> Engine paid for awaiting delivery!
>
> Need more money/time/arms!
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-
> list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Reining
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:42 PM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining
>
> Has anyone posted a detailed list of what has already been done,
> and what remains to be done, for the QB wings and fuselage? Ideally
> something that references the plans, such as: for the wings,
> sections xx all complete, steps yy in section zz. need to be
> finished. I checked the archive, but had no luck.
>
> Bill Reining - going to OSH all week
>
> Tail cone
>
> 40514
>
> N475R reserved
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jdalton77(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | E-Drill Bushing location |
I'm assembling the elevator/HS and I can't seem to find anything in the parts that
resembles the "E-Drill Bushing" for drilling the elevator horns. It's describes
as a steel 1/4" diameter 1" long tube.
Did anyone else have trouble finding this?
Jeff
I'm assembling the elevator/HS and I can't seem to find anything in the parts
that resembles the "E-Drill Bushing" for drilling the elevator horns.
It's describes as a steel 1/4" diameter 1" long tube.
Did anyone else have trouble finding this?
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Beyer" <fehdxl(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: E-Drill Bushing location |
Jeff,
Mine is in bag # 1001 along with the two WD-415, Trim Cable Anchors.
Which reminds me....I need to get the new WD-415-1's from Van's for $8...or
the milled ones from, uh, can't remember the web site's name now, for $38 --
decisions?
Hope that helps.
-Jim
On 10/15/06, jdalton77(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
> I'm assembling the elevator/HS and I can't seem to find anything in the
> parts that resembles the "E-Drill Bushing" for drilling the elevator horns.
> It's describes as a steel 1/4" diameter 1" long tube.
>
> Did anyone else have trouble finding this?
>
> Jeff
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LIKE2LOOP(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Weldment part |
In a message dated 10/15/06 5:10:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
fehdxl(at)gmail.com writes:
I need to get the new WD-415-1's from Van's for $8...or the milled ones
from, uh, can't remember the web site's name now, for $38 -- decisions?
Get the ones from Dave Czachorowski, DBA - Rivethead,
_rvsiverbullet(at)verizon.net_ (mailto:rvsiverbullet(at)verizon.net)
302-437-6087
I am not sure what VANs is selling now, but the ones in the KIT are pretty
weak. The ones i received from Dave are excellent workmanship. If you hold
the two parts side by side, you will wonder how they ever tried selling the
one with the kit. Make sure you are comparing apples to apples. I got the
weldment nuts, HS attach brackets and rudder stops in one package, call and ask
price.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Hunter" <rwhunter(at)integra.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Weldment part |
Here is the web site for the WD 415 by Dave Czachorowski.
http://www.
rivethead-aero.com/rv10l
Rob Hunter
Elevators
40432
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf
Of LIKE2LOOP(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 4:
23 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Weldment part
In a message dated 10/15/06 5:10:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
fehdxl(at)gmail.com writes:
I need to get the new WD-415-1's from Van's for $8...or the milled ones
from, uh, can't remember the web site's name now, for $38 -- decisions?
Get the ones from Dave Czachorowski, DBA - Rivethead,
rvsiverbullet(at)verizon.net 302-437-6087
I am not sure what VANs is selling now, but the ones in the KIT are
pretty weak. The ones i received from Dave are excellent workmanship.
If you hold the two parts side by side, you will wonder how they ever
tried selling the one with the kit. Make sure you are comparing apples
to apples. I got the weldment nuts, HS attach brackets and rudder stops
in one package, call and ask price.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Ackerman <johnag5b(at)cableone.net> |
Try calling Joliet avionics - they may be willing to buy the 295. or
trade.
Good luck!
On Oct 13, 2006, at 6:19 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote:
>>
>> I am rebuilding a panel for an old friend, I am using his Garmin 295
>> SL-40, GTX-327. Well the airgizmo panel mount I bought and have the
>> panel cut for fits the 296 so what can I do about traiding someone
>> across the board?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 10/15/06 7:36:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
johnag5b(at)cableone.net writes:
Try calling Joliet avionics
Do you mean JA and DPA?
P
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Scotts great Hi Res pics of his first flight |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Congratulations to both Ray and Scott on the great accomplishment of
N104XP. The pictures are just the ticket on a wet Sunday here on the
Wet Coast. Missed your trophy at OSH '06 but am optimistic that if you
make Copperstate '06 you guys will set the tone for the rest of the
winter.
John Cox
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: E-Drill Bushing location |
I have the ones from Dave at Rivethead-Aero.com.
I bought them before Vans came out with the new ones - Dave's are way
better than the new ones though - and he has several other small parts
that are better (and prefabricated by the way.) Buying the lot of them
saves me a couple of hours.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Beyer
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: E-Drill Bushing location
Jeff,
Mine is in bag # 1001 along with the two WD-415, Trim Cable Anchors.
Which reminds me....I need to get the new WD-415-1's from Van's for
$8...or the milled ones from, uh, can't remember the web site's name
now, for $38 -- decisions?
Hope that helps.
-Jim
On 10/15/06, jdalton77(at)comcast.net wrote:
I'm assembling the elevator/HS and I can't seem to find anything in
the parts that resembles the "E-Drill Bushing" for drilling the elevator
horns. It's describes as a steel 1/4" diameter 1" long tube.
Did anyone else have trouble finding this?
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: E-Drill Bushing location |
Well, I never found it, but I had a piece of 1/4" OD copper pipe that,
after sanding the exterior on the belt sander for a second did the job
quite well.
----- Original Message -----
From: jdalton77(at)comcast.net
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 3:31 PM
Subject: RV10-List: E-Drill Bushing location
I'm assembling the elevator/HS and I can't seem to find anything in
the parts that resembles the "E-Drill Bushing" for drilling the elevator
horns. It's describes as a steel 1/4" diameter 1" long tube.
Did anyone else have trouble finding this?
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LIKE2LOOP(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Weldment part |
In a message dated 10/15/06 6:31:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
kearney(at)shaw.ca writes:
I plan to get Rivethead=99s part only because it looks like it will l
ast.
Should I also be purchasing his other RV10 products (i.e. brackets etc)?
Les. In a word YES. Quality and dont look back.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robin Marks" <robin1(at)mrmoisture.com> |
John,
Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when
you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am all for
the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) but
one day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate
choice and regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you
should expect to shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same
time limiting the total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of
prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10
sales with alternate engines)
When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get
an alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any
potential savings.
A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v.
Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their
respective traits is the significant increase in build time between the
Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other
choices are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+
build hours actually flying.
Robin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement "~20% of the
original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all
recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"?
I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except N210RV. That
is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental). No science used
in this conclusion. I'm baffled.
John Cox
________________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
John,
Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when you find out
how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am all for the concept of different
engine choices (and applaud all who try) but one day you will have to
convince a buyer to purchase your alternate choice and regardless of how nice
you built the rest of the plane you should expect to shave $20-30K off a comparable
plane while at the same time limiting the total number of buyers to ~20%
of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific based
on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)
When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an alternate
engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any potential savings.
A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII
FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their respective traits is the
significant increase in build time between the Vans kits and the other choices.
Everyone concedes that the other choices are beautiful planes but I would
prefer spending the extra 2000+ build hours actually flying.
Robin
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | E-Drill Bushing location |
| From: | "Stovall Todd Lt Col AF/A4RX" <Todd.Stovall(at)pentagon.af.mil> |
Jeff,
Look in bag 1001. That's where it is according to the inventory sheet.
I can't verifiy at the moment 'cause I'm at work.
Todd
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
jdalton77(at)comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 3:31 PM
Subject: RV10-List: E-Drill Bushing location
I'm assembling the elevator/HS and I can't seem to find anything in the
parts that resembles the "E-Drill Bushing" for drilling the elevator
horns. It's describes as a steel 1/4" diameter 1" long tube.
Did anyone else have trouble finding this?
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Link McGarity <wv4i(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Weldment part |
If you don't buy the pre fab HS attach brackets, be very careful as to
dimensions, hole sizes and positioning, etc. I did not catch that the
widths are different, had to order new angle stock fm Air Parts, and do
them again, etc.. Not difficult to make these parts incorrectly.
Definitely want to catch before drilling HS front spar...All considered,
I would just buy the pre fab HS attach brackets, and save time. Probably
other items too. Thanks to all for heads up and info.
Link McGarity
#40622 Elevator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | E-Drill Bushing location |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
In the "For what it's worth" category, I happened to visit the Van's
factory last Monday (and got a quick flight in N410RV), and bought the
new WD-415-1's while I was there. They look much better than the
originals that came with my kit, with a better weld along the back
(where the original had its only weld) and a really beefy weld along the
front side.
Jack Phillips
# 40610
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Beyer
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: E-Drill Bushing location
Jeff,
Mine is in bag # 1001 along with the two WD-415, Trim Cable Anchors.
Which reminds me....I need to get the new WD-415-1's from Van's for
$8...or the milled ones from, uh, can't remember the web site's name
now, for $38 -- decisions?
Hope that helps.
-Jim
On 10/15/06, jdalton77(at)comcast.net wrote:
I'm assembling the elevator/HS and I can't seem to find anything in the
parts that resembles the "E-Drill Bushing" for drilling the elevator
horns. It's describes as a steel 1/4" diameter 1" long tube.
Did anyone else have trouble finding this?
Jeff
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege
d, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it i
n error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any
other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com |
Genrally putting the battery on the firewall will shorten the life of a
battery plus if you do put the battery on the firewall, you should consider
creating an easy access to it's location...having the battery close to the starter
may not be a bad thing as there is less line lose in the distance from the
firewall to the starter as opposed to a location in the rear of the aircraft.
P
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robin Marks" <robin1(at)mrmoisture.com> |
John,
That was the humor part of the email thus the bold HIGHLY. As
there are almost no -10 sales recorded and basically no alternate
engines let alone sales of alternate engine -10's. My fundamental point
is that if one wanted to go the alternate engine route for fuel / power
plant savings that they would ultimately experience the "expense" an
alternate engine costs at resale.
I looked at a beautiful 7A slider with a Subaru engine mounted
up front. It was as nice (panel & build) as the $110K 7's that have sold
except the seller was having a hard time getting $70K for it. IMHO most
prospective RV buyers were not willing to take the risk of owning an
alternate engine especially when they don't have the experience of an
alternate engine installation or are the holders of the planes
repairman's certificate.
Happy flying,
Robin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:23 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement
"~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY
scientific based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"?
I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except
N210RV. That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a
Continental). No science used in this conclusion. I'm baffled.
John Cox
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
btw Scott, B E A U T I F U L Plane1 Congrats on your 1st flight.
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing
http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Weldment part |
| From: | "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net> |
According to you guys, I probably have a version #2. I think I'll definitely order
WD-415-1 OR the aluminum milled one. It sounds like the aluminum milled one
is beefier, right? After all, the original is steel.
John
[quote="fehdxl(at)gmail.com"]
v1: no aft weld (single weld across the front of the nut)
v2: one long weld across the front of the nut and a small tack weld on the aft
side of the nut
v3: full width welds on both sides of the nut (Also known as WD-415-1).
[quote]
--------
#40572 Empennage - starting Elevators!
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68347#68347
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net> |
Wow!
I didn't mean to help start a firestorm, but the discussion has been very enlightening.
Obviously, there are lots of trade-offs in the engine department. Frankly,
I would be very happy with an IO-540, and will probably get one. The O-540
is a possiblility (I've noticed the hot start issue when I tag along with my
brother and his RV formation buddies).
My real concern is the availability of 100LL. It is my understanding that there
are only two refineries left in the world that still produce it. What if 100LL
becomes as hard to find as whale oil? Also, what are the issues with fuel tanks
that were designed for - and only contain - 100LL? Obviously, there would
be a run for autogas, and I assume that a way would be found to adapt an IO-540
to autogas. But autogas is a chemical soup that the industry and states feel
free to alter on a whim.
The real answer for our generation of flyers is diesel/jetA. That's all I'm looking
for - a diesel 540 (g).
John
--------
#40572 Empennage - starting Elevators!
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68359#68359
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 10/16/2006 9:59:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
johngoodman(at)earthlink.net writes:
The O-540 is a possiblility (I've noticed the hot start issue when I tag
along with my brother and his RV formation buddies).
I fly behind an O-540 for a number of years and in flying behind the IO-540
also...the IO has occasionally a "re-start" problem if you try to start it in
the cold start mode. The O 540 is almost bullet proof in starting.
Lead additive...only one company makes the lead active for leaded gas and
their plant is located in the UK. Most O-540 can use regular gas (leaded or
unleaded) but if you think you're going to get an alcohol blended gas then
you've got to make sure the pump's, lines etc will not be plasticized by the
alcohol. Your fuel burn will be high with the alcohol as it's not delivering
as
many BTU's as pure gas.
Diesel...not too many selections for aviation engines out there in large HP
engines. Delta Hawk said they would create a larger engine after the
successful introduction of the 4 cyclinder engine. I understand that they have
finally begun delivering a few engines...my buddy Pete received his a week ago.
But they are really 2-3 years behind where they said there were going to
be...but at least they are in some sort of production. Guess you can see if SMA
or Theilert can produce an engine in your time frame.
P
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jdalton77(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Elevator skin repair suggestions |
While removing the AN-3 bolts for the umteenth time that connect the elevators
to the HS I slipped with the wrench and made a small tear in the skin of the elevator.
It's about 1" long.
I would like to repair it, rather than replace the entire skin. I thought I'd
clean it up at epoxy a small square of aluminum to the underside of the tear and
fill in the rest with filler. It's is not visible when the the elevator is
in the trailing position.
Thoughts?
Jeff
While removing the AN-3 bolts for the umteenth time that connect the elevators
to the HS I slipped with the wrench and made a small tear in the skin of
the elevator. It's about 1" long.
I would like to repair it, rather than replace the entire skin. I thought
I'd clean it up at epoxy a small square of aluminum to the underside of
the tear and fill in the rest with filler. It's is not visible when the
the elevator is in the trailing position.
Thoughts?
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Beyer" <fehdxl(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator skin repair suggestions |
Jeff, I would make the tear a square hole, then fabricate a small piece to
exactly fill the hole, as well as a larger piece which would rivet to the
existing skin as well as create the lip for the smaller piece to rivet to.
Think of those repair kits used to fix a large hole in drywall. AC 43-13
has all kinds of good information about this regarding edge spacing, minimum
number of rivets per square inch, etc, etc. Of course, if the tear is very
close to the edge, on a curved part of the HS, or near a rib, the solutions
become more complex. Hope this helps. -Jim
On 10/16/06, jdalton77(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
> While removing the AN-3 bolts for the umteenth time that connect the
> elevators to the HS I slipped with the wrench and made a small tear in the
> skin of the elevator. It's about 1" long.
>
> I would like to repair it, rather than replace the entire skin. I thought
> I'd clean it up at epoxy a small square of aluminum to the underside of the
> tear and fill in the rest with filler. It's is not visible when the the
> elevator is in the trailing position.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jeff
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
o=\o
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Top Mount Antennas |
| From: | "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann(at)baesystems.com> |
G'day all,
I'm about to take a drill to the foward tailcone skin to install an
AV-10 comms antenna (comm 2). I also have an AV-17 on the belly.
The AV-10 will be located baout 8" aft of the turtledeck/tailcone join.
Any opinions on radiation penetration through the fiberglass lid and
possible RFI induced in the panel? Would a foil ground plane beneath
the headliner be useful?
cheers,
Ron
#187
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | FS: RV10 Tail Kit |
For a bunch of reasons, I'm putting my RV-10 tail kit (#400022) up for
sale. VS, rudder complete, HS in progress. Builder's log to date
available upon request. This will need to be picked up at my home about
30 miles east of NYC; I am unable to ship. Price: Best offer; start
your project frugally!
Larry Rachman
Centerport, NY
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Murray Randall" <aeroads(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kit Contents: was Vans AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans |
AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans Alternator
Does anyone have a less expensive alternative to "Panel Planner"....$285
and I'm sure its worth it but for a one time application its hard to
justify Murray Randall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator skin repair suggestions |
Thanks Jim,
Good advice. The tear is both by the edge and on a curve, but I think I
can make it work. Thanks.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Beyer
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Elevator skin repair suggestions
Jeff, I would make the tear a square hole, then fabricate a small
piece to exactly fill the hole, as well as a larger piece which would
rivet to the existing skin as well as create the lip for the smaller
piece to rivet to. Think of those repair kits used to fix a large hole
in drywall. AC 43-13 has all kinds of good information about this
regarding edge spacing, minimum number of rivets per square inch, etc,
etc. Of course, if the tear is very close to the edge, on a curved part
of the HS, or near a rib, the solutions become more complex. Hope this
helps. -Jim
On 10/16/06, jdalton77(at)comcast.net wrote:
While removing the AN-3 bolts for the umteenth time that connect the
elevators to the HS I slipped with the wrench and made a small tear in
the skin of the elevator. It's about 1" long.
I would like to repair it, rather than replace the entire skin. I
thought I'd clean it up at epoxy a small square of aluminum to the
underside of the tear and fill in the rest with filler. It's is not
visible when the the elevator is in the trailing position.
Thoughts?
Jeff
--
o=\o
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Perry Casson <pcasson(at)sasktel.net> |
| Subject: | Kit Contents: was Vans AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans |
AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans Alternator
I played with http://www.epanelbuilder.com/ for a while but once I had decided on equipment I just
print 1:1 scale photos of my instruments and laid them out on the actual panel
until I was happy.
The rest of the job was just low tech measuring, marking, cutting and drilling.
Perry Casson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kit Contents: was Vans AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans |
AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans Alternator
www.epanelbuilder.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Murray Randall
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kit Contents: was Vans AlternatorKit Contents:
was Vans AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans Alternator
Does anyone have a less expensive alternative to "Panel
Planner"....$285 and I'm sure its worth it but for a one time
application its hard to justify Murray Randall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator skin repair suggestions |
Give serious thought to reskinning that area. Elevator is a balanced
control surface. So either you will have a small difference in counter
weight on that side if you add metal for a patch, or not. The skin
isn't that expensive, it is mostly the time involved. I tend to think
you will be happier in the long run with fresh skin, but that is your
decision.
On 10/17/06, jdalton77 wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Jim,
>
> Good advice. The tear is both by the edge and on a curve, but I think I can
> make it work. Thanks.
>
> Jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Beyer
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:20 AM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Elevator skin repair suggestions
>
> Jeff, I would make the tear a square hole, then fabricate a small piece to
> exactly fill the hole, as well as a larger piece which would rivet to the
> existing skin as well as create the lip for the smaller piece to rivet to.
> Think of those repair kits used to fix a large hole in drywall. AC 43-13
> has all kinds of good information about this regarding edge spacing, minimum
> number of rivets per square inch, etc, etc. Of course, if the tear is very
> close to the edge, on a curved part of the HS, or near a rib, the solutions
> become more complex. Hope this helps. -Jim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator skin repair suggestions |
Do you think a 2" square piece of .32 aluminum will affect elevator balance?
I could always add this extra weight to the other side (can you even weigh
something that small?)
I would consider changing the skin if it were visible AND I wasn't almost
completely assembled.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Elevator skin repair suggestions
>
> Give serious thought to reskinning that area. Elevator is a balanced
> control surface. So either you will have a small difference in counter
> weight on that side if you add metal for a patch, or not. The skin
> isn't that expensive, it is mostly the time involved. I tend to think
> you will be happier in the long run with fresh skin, but that is your
> decision.
>
> On 10/17/06, jdalton77 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks Jim,
>>
>> Good advice. The tear is both by the edge and on a curve, but I think I
>> can
>> make it work. Thanks.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jim Beyer
>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Elevator skin repair suggestions
>>
>> Jeff, I would make the tear a square hole, then fabricate a small piece
>> to
>> exactly fill the hole, as well as a larger piece which would rivet to the
>> existing skin as well as create the lip for the smaller piece to rivet
>> to.
>> Think of those repair kits used to fix a large hole in drywall. AC 43-13
>> has all kinds of good information about this regarding edge spacing,
>> minimum
>> number of rivets per square inch, etc, etc. Of course, if the tear is
>> very
>> close to the edge, on a curved part of the HS, or near a rib, the
>> solutions
>> become more complex. Hope this helps. -Jim
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Elevator skin repair suggestions |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
If you choose to add any weight, be very careful when flight testing the
airplane. The reason for balancing the control surfaces is to control
flutter. There have been cases where the extra weight of adding paint
to control surfaces caused them to flutter at high speeds.
I would doubt that such a small piece of aluminum would cause the
balance to change dramatically, but by the time you rivet it in place
with a doubler to support it, you might add enough to cause a problem.
Read Vaughn Askue's book "Flight Testing Homebuilt Aircraft" about how
to conduct flutter testing.
If it were me, I'd replace the skin before I would add weight to it.
Jack Phillips
#40610
Working on the HS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jdalton77
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Elevator skin repair suggestions
Do you think a 2" square piece of .32 aluminum will affect elevator
balance?
I could always add this extra weight to the other side (can you even
weigh
something that small?)
I would consider changing the skin if it were visible AND I wasn't
almost
completely assembled.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Elevator skin repair suggestions
>
> Give serious thought to reskinning that area. Elevator is a balanced
> control surface. So either you will have a small difference in counter
> weight on that side if you add metal for a patch, or not. The skin
> isn't that expensive, it is mostly the time involved. I tend to think
> you will be happier in the long run with fresh skin, but that is your
> decision.
>
> On 10/17/06, jdalton77 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks Jim,
>>
>> Good advice. The tear is both by the edge and on a curve, but I
think I
>> can
>> make it work. Thanks.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jim Beyer
>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Elevator skin repair suggestions
>>
>> Jeff, I would make the tear a square hole, then fabricate a small
piece
>> to
>> exactly fill the hole, as well as a larger piece which would rivet to
the
>> existing skin as well as create the lip for the smaller piece to
rivet
>> to.
>> Think of those repair kits used to fix a large hole in drywall. AC
43-13
>> has all kinds of good information about this regarding edge spacing,
>> minimum
>> number of rivets per square inch, etc, etc. Of course, if the tear
is
>> very
>> close to the edge, on a curved part of the HS, or near a rib, the
>> solutions
>> become more complex. Hope this helps. -Jim
>>
>>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Elevator skin repair suggestions |
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
Square patches indicate 90 degree corners and 90 degree corners equals
stress risers. Try to avoid any sharp corners in that type of repair.
I also agree with others that you might want to seriously consider
reskinning. It will bug you until you do it anyway. :-)
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Should restart building Jan 1
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Beyer
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Elevator skin repair suggestions
Jeff, I would make the tear a square hole, then fabricate a small piece
to exactly fill the hole, as well as a larger piece which would rivet to
the existing skin as well as create the lip for the smaller piece to
rivet to. Think of those repair kits used to fix a large hole in
drywall. AC 43-13 has all kinds of good information about this
regarding edge spacing, minimum number of rivets per square inch, etc,
etc. Of course, if the tear is very close to the edge, on a curved part
of the HS, or near a rib, the solutions become more complex. Hope this
helps. -Jim
On 10/16/06, jdalton77(at)comcast.net wrote:
While removing the AN-3 bolts for the umteenth time that connect
the elevators to the HS I slipped with the wrench and made a small tear
in the skin of the elevator. It's about 1" long.
I would like to repair it, rather than replace the entire skin.
I thought I'd clean it up at epoxy a small square of aluminum to the
underside of the tear and fill in the rest with filler. It's is not
visible when the the elevator is in the trailing position.
Thoughts?
Jeff
--
o=\o
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com> |
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=11795
Here is a little write up from my first flight I just posted if any of
you are interested.
Thanks John and everyone else for the congratulations. Can't wait for
more of you to finish. Looks like I was #55.
It's amazing there are already 55 of these flying. Now if the weather
here in Salt Lake would clear I could fly some hours off.
Scott Schmidt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com |
Our EAA group will be touring the Lycoming factory next week and I can bring
up the subject of experimentals for RV 10's if you like...but I'm sure they
are not really targeting the RV market rather assuming that we will all just
jump on the bandwagon.
Patrick Scott
EAA 240 Prez
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 10/17/2006 11:08:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
BPA(at)bpaengines.com writes:
Add to this the cost of having organized labor, and you quickly add 30% to
your overhead.
Allan,
I guess that the point that many of the kit builders don't understand is the
benefits and union rates the workers receive!!! Please before I get the
anti union comments...I'm pro union and if the union can provide great employees
and be competitive I'm in their corner. Either way, Lycoming makes a good
reliable engine and it seems to be the engine of choice for many Van's
builders.
Patrick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
I somehow thought that a number of builders were going with AeroSport
or BPA or similar sourced overhauled Lyc. engine, with savings in the
5-10K range over a new Lyc from Vans. Or overhauling their own engine.
Am I wrong or is there good reason to go with the factory new engine?
I see any engine with crank made after 1996 as a minus, as most have
AD, or have been replaced with new version, about little is known
other than Lyc somehow changed specs, because the 1996 specs caused
the original problem(or their forger, who knows). All we really know
is that the older cranks are very proven.
On 10/17/06, GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 10/17/2006 11:08:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> BPA(at)bpaengines.com writes:
> Add to this the cost of having organized labor, and you quickly add 30% to
> your overhead.
>
> Allan,
>
> I guess that the point that many of the kit builders don't understand is the
> benefits and union rates the workers receive!!! Please before I get the
> anti union comments...I'm pro union and if the union can provide great
> employees and be competitive I'm in their corner. Either way, Lycoming
> makes a good reliable engine and it seems to be the engine of choice for
> many Van's builders.
>
> Patrick
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | First flight write up. |
| From: | "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com> |
Here is the write up I put in Van's Airforce with a couple shot.
Saturday was a great day all around. The winds were 0-3 knots, 60
degrees OAT, and I didn't sleep one wink that night.
I know everyone says don't have alot of people come to the first flight
but that is one rule that I didn't follow. I let everyone know that
wanted to know but it was still mostly my family and my wife's family.
There were the usual airport groupies that were hanging around and two
of my best friends from work were there too.
I did a preflight on the plane early that morning and then Ray did one
too. My friend Mark Patey came up from Spanish Fork airport in his RV-6A
to fly chase and we went through the flight on the ground first. I was
going to climb out (4230ft airport elevation) to 6500 ft. and orbit the
airport below Class B. I wasn't going to touch the power settings until
at least 6000 ft. There have been many engines that have quit when
people started to pull back RPM's or MP. I was then going to fly 65% to
75% power for at least 20 minutes, then go into some slow flight and get
some airspeed numbers. Then back to full power for 10 more minutes and
land.
I walked the plane one more time, made sure I had my POH (Thanks Tim)
and my notes that I had made and strapped in. I did mount a camera in
the plane. My friend's wife walked into the hanger as I was duct taping
the tripod to the floor. I think she thought I was putting in the last
few critical pieces. By the way, we will be putting the duct tape on
e-bay from the first flight. The video is awesome from inside, can't
wait to get it edited so everyone can see it. You can see the camera in
the back in some pictures.
My wife took a camera and flew with Mark in the chase aircraft and again
some of the formation video turned out great. Because there was really
no wind and my hanger is on the south end of the airport we had to make
some calls and reverse the pattern. I did not want to taxi my new engine
all the way to the other end and everyone was really nice about it. We
then both taxied out to the end of 34 and I did my final checks.
So there I was sitting at the end of the runway ready to take off. This
is the moment we all think about over and over again after long nights
of deburring, riveting, wiring, sanding, painting, troubleshooting, and
day dreaming at work. I've always thought that I would get to end of
runway, take a big breath and really take it all in. Well, I got out
there and I was ready, the plane was ready and I just wanted to fly.
I added one notch of flaps, turn the fuel pump on, checked for the 10th
time that the fuel was on and all instruments were set and made the
announcement, "OK, here we go!"
The next few moments were very routine thanks to Mike Seager and 410RV.
I went up and flew 8.5 hours in 410RV and had 44 landings with Mike.
Everything felt identical in this takeoff. The plane accelerated
quickly, I pulled the nose off within the first 200 feet and just held
it up and we were airborne before the first exit. I am going to go out
there someday and measure it because it seemed shorter than 500 ft.
The RPM's were right around 2710 on climb out, I actually pulled them
back to 2650 on my down wind and then back to 2500 at 6000 ft.
It was great to have a chase plane there for the 30 minute flight. I
didn't have to make any radio calls, I monitored the airport frequency
but left it on 123.45 and talked with the ground and with Mark in the
chase plane. I was able to focus on the flying and monitoring engine
parameters.
During the flight my airspeed seemed to be 5-6 knots slower at 140 knots
than Marks RV-6A, and at 100 knots seemed to be around 4-5 knots. My CHT
maxed at 410 on climb out and then cooled and stabilized at 385 F with
75% power. My oil temp never went above 185 F. The engine ran flawless
(Great job Aerosport).
I made one more upwind leg and started to slow her down to 85 knots for
the first notch of flaps. Then I set up for a 78 knot decent and added
the second notch (20 degrees). I didn't add full flaps because with only
one or two people in the plane you can't trim out all the control forces
with 30 degrees of flaps. Even with 50 lbs in the baggage, Mike Seager
and I couldn't fully trim out the forces. So I decided during my
transition training that 20 degrees would be my setting and it worked
perfect.
I was definitely fast on my approach but I had plenty of runway to bleed
off speed. I planned on aiming for 1/3 down the runway and a couple
extra knots over 76. 76 (90 mph) was the approach speed Mike Seager
teaches you. My brother has some great shots of the landing sequence.
I'll just include a few.
Once the smoke came off that first wheel it was time to relax and
celebrate.
Now I need to fly off another 24 hours and then another 25 of rides but
that is the fun part.
I would definitely recommend some transition training for your first
flight. When I initially called for insurance they quoted me 10 hours of
total RV time with one hour in an RV-10. They apparently are now
requiring 10 hours of RV-10 time! I have argued with them that this is
going to be impossible for the whole RV-10 community to get but that is
what they said. They allowed my training to count but start calling your
insurance now and check on that.
Also, having a chase plane was nice to relieve stress and to keep an eye
on the outside of the plane.
Scott Schmidt
Product Manager
1260 South 1600 West
Orem, UT 84058
Cell 801-319-3094
Work 801-235-9001
Fax 801-235-9141
sschmidt(at)ussynthetic.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
Just for some data points can you share the following info:
1) What is the current engine config.
2) What is the current expected HP.
3) When did you order, when were you supposed to receive it, when are
you know told you will receive it.
4) Are you anticipating any major challenges with the install.
5) When are they expecting to have the James Cowl ready.
I haven't been keeping track since I went with my Barrett engine so I
don't know the status and there was nothing on display at Airventure.
Items 1, 2, & 3, above were directly related to my decision to go with a
Lyc and I'm curious on if they are still shifting. I also think they
are important things for prospects to know until there are a few out
there for hard data.
I used to live and work in the Chicagoland area and would love to drop
in some time after you get the engine and see how it goes.
Thanks,
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve Mills
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:34 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
Michael,
I am building an RV-10 with the H-6 Subaru, and will be receiving my
engine in the same batch as Dan Lloyd.
Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices(at)btinternet.com> |
The real issue here is whether or not you really need a brand new
engine. if you fly say 100 hours per annum it takes you 20 years to
reach the 2000 hours TBO. Already there engines that are specified as
2000hours or 12 years what ever comes first.
There ought to be 540's about that suffer from the crank issue and have
been set aside or otherwise. Try these engines and buy the crankkit from
Lycoming for qualified engines for $2000, it comes with all hardware and
gaskets. This will give you in effect a 0 hour bottom end, then purchase
a set of overhauled studs if the valves are good and built them onto
your overhauled studs and you'll have an engine as good as new for a lot
less and a bit of elbow grease.
The scenario above can be achieved for core value or even lower maybe
plus $5000.
Marcel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
Kelly, there are options w/ AeroSport or BPA/Mattituck or the other
'authorized Lyc builders' I believe that Tim's engine was and Overhauled
engine from Aerosport. By overhauled I think the only parts not new were
the case and the crank. Another option (the one I'm using w/ BPA) is the
Lyc 'experimental kit', where Lyc shipped all New parts to the builder
(my understanding is that these are the same parts as the certified
engine) and the builder assembles the engine and puts their name plate
(experimental) on it. Going this route still provides savings over the
Factory New Lycoming price. Additionally, with one of the kit builders,
you are able to have your engine 'blueprinted' and somewhat customized
(as John Cox would say 'hot rodded') like Allen outlined in his earlier
post.
Deems Davis # 406
/Finishing
http://deemsrv10.com/
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> I somehow thought that a number of builders were going with AeroSport
> or BPA or similar sourced overhauled Lyc. engine, with savings in the
> 5-10K range over a new Lyc from Vans. Or overhauling their own engine.
> Am I wrong or is there good reason to go with the factory new engine?
> I see any engine with crank made after 1996 as a minus, as most have
> AD, or have been replaced with new version, about little is known
> other than Lyc somehow changed specs, because the 1996 specs caused
> the original problem(or their forger, who knows). All we really know
> is that the older cranks are very proven.
>
> On 10/17/06, GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 10/17/2006 11:08:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> BPA(at)bpaengines.com writes:
>> Add to this the cost of having organized labor, and you quickly add
>> 30% to
>> your overhead.
>>
>> Allan,
>>
>> I guess that the point that many of the kit builders don't understand
>> is the
>> benefits and union rates the workers receive!!! Please before I get the
>> anti union comments...I'm pro union and if the union can provide great
>> employees and be competitive I'm in their corner. Either way, Lycoming
>> makes a good reliable engine and it seems to be the engine of choice for
>> many Van's builders.
>>
>> Patrick
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
While I have no hard facts around this, I have also heard that some
MIDO's will not allow a previously certified engine, that has had time
in an experimental, to be placed into certified service again. Makes no
sense to me but it is the FAA after all. This would make the idea of
paying extra for a certified engine a bit of a waste. Then again you
could probably switch regions and get a completely different
interpretation anyway. :-) I however did go with a brand new
Experimental Lyc "kit" engine. Cores are getting a little scarce and I
didn't feel like running into a bunch of AD's down the road, not that a
"new" engine won't have that happen.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
I somehow thought that a number of builders were going with AeroSport or
BPA or similar sourced overhauled Lyc. engine, with savings in the 5-10K
range over a new Lyc from Vans. Or overhauling their own engine.
Am I wrong or is there good reason to go with the factory new engine?
I see any engine with crank made after 1996 as a minus, as most have AD,
or have been replaced with new version, about little is known other than
Lyc somehow changed specs, because the 1996 specs caused the original
problem(or their forger, who knows). All we really know is that the
older cranks are very proven.
On 10/17/06, GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 10/17/2006 11:08:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> BPA(at)bpaengines.com writes:
> Add to this the cost of having organized labor, and you quickly add
> 30% to your overhead.
>
> Allan,
>
> I guess that the point that many of the kit builders don't understand
> is the benefits and union rates the workers receive!!! Please before
> I get the anti union comments...I'm pro union and if the union can
> provide great employees and be competitive I'm in their corner.
> Either way, Lycoming makes a good reliable engine and it seems to be
> the engine of choice for many Van's builders.
>
> Patrick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BPA" <BPA(at)bpaengines.com> |
Cores are REALLY scarce, and demand premium price to purchase. The cores
that are available were bottom of the barrel engine cores as little as 5
years ago. Every part that rejects on an engine core adds to the cost of
an overhaul somewhere, be it your engine or the engine the parts came
from to build yours, or new. This IMHO is the reason for the IO-540 kit
engine. Lycoming quickly acknowledged the drying up of the 0/IO-540
engine core market and delivered the kit option first. No doubt ECI and
Superior are not too far behind. Sure, this is good news for the end
user as it spurs competition as do the alternate engine(s). This is a
GREAT situation for GA to be in if looking at it from a purely economic
standpoint.
Allen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:24 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
While I have no hard facts around this, I have also heard that some
MIDO's will not allow a previously certified engine, that has had time
in an experimental, to be placed into certified service again. Makes no
sense to me but it is the FAA after all. This would make the idea of
paying extra for a certified engine a bit of a waste. Then again you
could probably switch regions and get a completely different
interpretation anyway. :-) I however did go with a brand new
Experimental Lyc "kit" engine. Cores are getting a little scarce and I
didn't feel like running into a bunch of AD's down the road, not that a
"new" engine won't have that happen.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
I somehow thought that a number of builders were going with AeroSport or
BPA or similar sourced overhauled Lyc. engine, with savings in the 5-10K
range over a new Lyc from Vans. Or overhauling their own engine.
Am I wrong or is there good reason to go with the factory new engine?
I see any engine with crank made after 1996 as a minus, as most have AD,
or have been replaced with new version, about little is known other than
Lyc somehow changed specs, because the 1996 specs caused the original
problem(or their forger, who knows). All we really know is that the
older cranks are very proven.
On 10/17/06, GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 10/17/2006 11:08:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> BPA(at)bpaengines.com writes:
> Add to this the cost of having organized labor, and you quickly add
> 30% to your overhead.
>
> Allan,
>
> I guess that the point that many of the kit builders don't understand
> is the benefits and union rates the workers receive!!! Please before
> I get the anti union comments...I'm pro union and if the union can
> provide great employees and be competitive I'm in their corner.
> Either way, Lycoming makes a good reliable engine and it seems to be
> the engine of choice for many Van's builders.
>
> Patrick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
Where the engine has been used in the past has no relevance to the
FAA. If it has a valid data plate, and all airworthy parts, it is a
certified engine. Especially if you have logbooks to show it has had a
100 hour inspection recently, or freshly overhauled. If you have the
piece with the data plate...usually sump on Lycs, any A&P can build
the rest of the engine out of new PMA parts or Lyc parts, and sign it
off as a freshly overhauled certified engine.
KM
A&P/IA
On 10/17/06, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>
> While I have no hard facts around this, I have also heard that some
> MIDO's will not allow a previously certified engine, that has had time
> in an experimental, to be placed into certified service again. Makes no
> sense to me but it is the FAA after all. This would make the idea of
> paying extra for a certified engine a bit of a waste. Then again you
> could probably switch regions and get a completely different
> interpretation anyway. :-) I however did go with a brand new
> Experimental Lyc "kit" engine. Cores are getting a little scarce and I
> didn't feel like running into a bunch of AD's down the road, not that a
> "new" engine won't have that happen.
>
> Michael Sausen
> -10 #352 Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BPA" <BPA(at)bpaengines.com> |
Agreed Kelly. The key thing to do is record ALL AND ANY maintenance done
to the engine, in the appropriate fashion, in the log book. And it will
have to be done to conformed status. In other words, CYA and there
should be no issue. But, the maintenance will have to be done by a
person with a powerplant rating in order to return the engine to
certified category. This goes against one of the reasons in building an
airplane anyway which is the freedom to perform your own maintenance,
right?
Allen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Where the engine has been used in the past has no relevance to the
FAA. If it has a valid data plate, and all airworthy parts, it is a
certified engine. Especially if you have logbooks to show it has had a
100 hour inspection recently, or freshly overhauled. If you have the
piece with the data plate...usually sump on Lycs, any A&P can build
the rest of the engine out of new PMA parts or Lyc parts, and sign it
off as a freshly overhauled certified engine.
KM
A&P/IA
On 10/17/06, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>
> While I have no hard facts around this, I have also heard that some
> MIDO's will not allow a previously certified engine, that has had time
> in an experimental, to be placed into certified service again. Makes
no
> sense to me but it is the FAA after all. This would make the idea of
> paying extra for a certified engine a bit of a waste. Then again you
> could probably switch regions and get a completely different
> interpretation anyway. :-) I however did go with a brand new
> Experimental Lyc "kit" engine. Cores are getting a little scarce and
I
> didn't feel like running into a bunch of AD's down the road, not that
a
> "new" engine won't have that happen.
>
> Michael Sausen
> -10 #352 Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining |
| From: | "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net> |
Tim & Larry,
I've got my QB wings coming and I've been looking at your wing stands. I only have
one question before I start duplicating your designs:
Would it be better to create a wing stand/cradle for each wing? I noticed in one
of the photos that one wing was stored overhead so work could be done on the
other wing. I have the floor space and 2x4s are cheap in this business.
John
--------
#40572 Empennage - starting Elevators!
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68621#68621
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Is #2 demo aircraft an anemic performer? Is only 800-1000fpm an anemic
climb? There are plenty of certified planes that don't do as well at
full gross, sporting "only" 200 hp, or less. From the Comanche 180,
Mooney M20C 180hp, to the Mooney 201 that goes almost as fast as a -10
on less gas and "only" 200 hp. I don't think it is considered anemic.
Has a gross wt of 2740 lbs for most versions, with a few that were
increased to 2900. Not everyone needs to go up at 1500ft a minute. The
201 has service ceiling around 18000 ft, which most consider adequate
for a non-turbo aircraft. No, it won't handle the short fields a -10
will, but as others have said, that depends entirely on your mission
requirements. Will the IO-540 produce 150hp on under 11gph? I kind of
doubt it. The IO-360 definitely will and does every day. Will the -10 do
165kts on that hp? At gross wt?
John W. Cox wrote:
>
> A reduction of 260 to 210 is a 19.2% reduction in BHP. To maintain the
> same robust HP/Weight and not have an anemic performer, then the gross
> weight would have to be reduced to 2208 pounds.
>
> For simpletons like me thats 492 pounds of offloaded fuel or
> passengers cause there just is not that much difference in powerplant
> weight saved on the empty weight side of the equation. I guess that
> means a RV-9 with a four banger. Now where is my math supporting a
> more anemic engine. Oh, yeh four cylinders instead of six, Fuel
> Consumption. Oh, no I forgot about pulling the throttle back and
> running a more anemic power output. Thus saving the throttle for the
> quick go arounds and climbouts to avoid weather.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining |
IMHO I do not see any reason for 2 stands with QB wings. All of the top
skins are already riveted in place, so you have little need to access
that side. The only time I needed to access the top side was to attach
the wing tips. To do that I just shifted the wings and was able to
complete those steps.
Larry Rosen
#356
johngoodman wrote:
>
> Tim & Larry,
> I've got my QB wings coming and I've been looking at your wing stands. I only
have one question before I start duplicating your designs:
>
> Would it be better to create a wing stand/cradle for each wing? I noticed in
one of the photos that one wing was stored overhead so work could be done on the
other wing. I have the floor space and 2x4s are cheap in this business.
> John
>
> --------
> #40572 Empennage - starting Elevators!
> N711JG reserved
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68621#68621
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Stainless steel heat selector boxes |
| From: | "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston(at)popsound.com> |
hey all -
just thought i'd give a pirep about the stainless heat selector boxes
that you can find here:
http://www.epm-avcorp.com/index.html
they're basically dimensionally identical to the aluminum ones from vans
- a direct bolt on replacement. they seem well made, and should do what
they're advertised to do. they're a bit heavier than the aluminum ones
- i weighed them on my digital scale (the one i use to mix proseal) and
here's the results:
aluminum 3.5 oz
stainless 5.7 oz
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Link McGarity <wv4i(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator skin repair suggestionsElevator skin repair suggestionsElevator |
skin repair suggestions
Thank you. I was reluctant to bring up the fact that control surface
flutter characteristics change as a function of hinged weight, and the
location of that weight. This discussion also comes to mind when
considering adding adjustable trim to the rudder. I would get an opinion
from Van's tech folks/person, and go with that.
Link McGarity
#40622 elevator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Front Axle Wear Issue |
| From: | "zackrv8" <zackrv8(at)verizon.net> |
Tim Olson,
I am installing my front axle today. I was wondering if you licked the problem
with the new aluminum spacers and axle that Vans sent you? Do we still need
a fix here?
Zack
--------
RV8 #80125
RV10 # 40512
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68697#68697
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Let me respond right here that the disgusting phrase "Hot Rodding" that
I have used in the past is a tongue in cheek mumble that VAN regularly
uses and for the benefit of Ken Scott who lurks on this list and tattles
on all who modify this great aircraft. I have a lot of respect for
Randy who built a "By the book, no deviation allowed" RV-10. However, I
encourage and support those who modify this great basic entry cruiser
aircraft into what it deserves to become. The most prolific and popular
4 place kit built aircraft on the planet. I am a proponent of
multi-screen glass efis, higher compression pistons, improved induction,
improved cooling, improved exhaust, improved cowling, improved braking,
improved aesthetics, improved graphics and improved composite work. The
phrase that builders would fall out of the sky or suffer catastrophic
control flutter by making such logical improvements was from the editor
of the RVator. I don't buy it, I have the same passion that VAN did
when he Hot Rodded the Playboy into his first RV.
I have 283 ideas (and growing) for improving this great design. Many of
those are being incorporated with aircraft builders willing to move off
the "plans only" construction concept. Don't get me wrong, I respect
those of you who do not deviate. I though, am waiting for a resolution
of the 51% rule before moving ahead with my plans for Builder Assist -
Commercially. I think that Tim, Scott and Deems are doing a great job
of growing the spirit of the Home Building Community on this post and on
their websites. It is with tremendous thrill and pride that I
acknowledge I am but a small part of this 650 kits sold, 55 kits flying
and lurker community. They just keep getting better and better. I wish
more was done at VANS to improve the quality, update the publication and
speed the boxing and shipping process. If Ken Krueger comes to our
dinner Friday, this will be a point worth sharing.
I am praying that Scott flies to Casa Grande next weekend so he can fly
home with Grand Champion - Copperstate. I will help reimburse him for
fuel if he does so. Ray, Scott and Ranae deserve it. The rest you need
to at least view their pictures. At 10 mega pixels he did not scrimp on
the quality. Not on his motorcycle, his hangar, his bicycle, his
partnership or that fabulous aircraft. Congrats again Ray for providing
Scott's continuity and to Ranae's patience.
Where is James McClow to share in all this excitement?
John #600
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Kelly, there are options w/ AeroSport or BPA/Mattituck or the other
'authorized Lyc builders' I believe that Tim's engine was and Overhauled
engine from Aerosport. By overhauled I think the only parts not new were
the case and the crank. Another option (the one I'm using w/ BPA) is the
Lyc 'experimental kit', where Lyc shipped all New parts to the builder
(my understanding is that these are the same parts as the certified
engine) and the builder assembles the engine and puts their name plate
(experimental) on it. Going this route still provides savings over the
Factory New Lycoming price. Additionally, with one of the kit builders,
you are able to have your engine 'blueprinted' and somewhat customized
(as John Cox would say 'hot rodded') like Allen outlined in his earlier
post.
Deems Davis # 406
/Finishing
http://deemsrv10.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Ackerman <johnag5b(at)cableone.net> |
Yep!
J.A. Air Center
www.jaair.com.
Sorry about that - old habits, etc.
John
On Oct 15, 2006, at 5:16 PM, GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/15/06 7:36:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> johnag5b(at)cableone.net writes:
>> Try calling Joliet avionicsDo you mean JA and DPA?
>
> P
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James K Hovis" <james.k.hovis(at)gmail.com> |
Flutter and dynamic divergence are REAL issues every airframe designer (and
for that matter, pilot) has to deal with especially so for
higher-performance aircraft. There are two ways to set Vne in FAR Part 23.
One, do ground vibration tests to find resonant frequencies (mainly shake
the crap out of it and see if anything falls off) of the airframe, then go
out and flight test to find its flutter point, then set the Vne at few per
cent below this speed. The other is to use the canned Vne minimum speed
formula based on wing loading. The canned formula is based on statistics
from certified aircraft that if you set Vne at this speed or below, you
won't encounter flutter. I suspect Van's took the conservative approach and
set Vne based on the canned formula. Now as Van points out, weight affects
flutter. Balance of control surfaces affect flutter (see Steve Whitman's
crash several years ago), and horsepower available affects flutter. Most
low-power spam-cans don't have the power to ever approach Vne except in
steep dives, while adding power means the top speed capable (that point
where the power available curve crosses the power required for level flight
curve) creeps ever closer to the flutter point. Now, don't get me wrong, if
someone want to drop in a 300hp engine into an RV, they are more than
welcome to do it. However, they should get a professional test pilot to
verify the Vne and flutter point for the configuration or get training on
how to react when flutter happens (the time from flutter onset to complete
divergence can be REAL small). Understanding the full ramifications of
modifications to the original design and testing for it may save someone's
life in the end.
JKH
On 10/18/06, John W. Cox wrote:
>
>
> Let me respond right here that the disgusting phrase "Hot Rodding" that
> I have used in the past is a tongue in cheek mumble that VAN regularly
> uses and for the benefit of Ken Scott who lurks on this list and tattles
> on all who modify this great aircraft. I have a lot of respect for
> Randy who built a "By the book, no deviation allowed" RV-10. However, I
> encourage and support those who modify this great basic entry cruiser
> aircraft into what it deserves to become. The most prolific and popular
> 4 place kit built aircraft on the planet. I am a proponent of
> multi-screen glass efis, higher compression pistons, improved induction,
> improved cooling, improved exhaust, improved cowling, improved braking,
> improved aesthetics, improved graphics and improved composite work. The
> phrase that builders would fall out of the sky or suffer catastrophic
> control flutter by making such logical improvements was from the editor
> of the RVator. I don't buy it, I have the same passion that VAN did
> when he Hot Rodded the Playboy into his first RV.
>
> I have 283 ideas (and growing) for improving this great design. Many of
> those are being incorporated with aircraft builders willing to move off
> the "plans only" construction concept. Don't get me wrong, I respect
> those of you who do not deviate. I though, am waiting for a resolution
> of the 51% rule before moving ahead with my plans for Builder Assist -
> Commercially. I think that Tim, Scott and Deems are doing a great job
> of growing the spirit of the Home Building Community on this post and on
> their websites. It is with tremendous thrill and pride that I
> acknowledge I am but a small part of this 650 kits sold, 55 kits flying
> and lurker community. They just keep getting better and better. I wish
> more was done at VANS to improve the quality, update the publication and
> speed the boxing and shipping process. If Ken Krueger comes to our
> dinner Friday, this will be a point worth sharing.
>
> I am praying that Scott flies to Casa Grande next weekend so he can fly
> home with Grand Champion - Copperstate. I will help reimburse him for
> fuel if he does so. Ray, Scott and Ranae deserve it. The rest you need
> to at least view their pictures. At 10 mega pixels he did not scrimp on
> the quality. Not on his motorcycle, his hangar, his bicycle, his
> partnership or that fabulous aircraft. Congrats again Ray for providing
> Scott's continuity and to Ranae's patience.
>
> Where is James McClow to share in all this excitement?
>
> John #600
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:49 PM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
>
> Kelly, there are options w/ AeroSport or BPA/Mattituck or the other
> 'authorized Lyc builders' I believe that Tim's engine was and Overhauled
>
> engine from Aerosport. By overhauled I think the only parts not new were
>
> the case and the crank. Another option (the one I'm using w/ BPA) is the
>
> Lyc 'experimental kit', where Lyc shipped all New parts to the builder
> (my understanding is that these are the same parts as the certified
> engine) and the builder assembles the engine and puts their name plate
> (experimental) on it. Going this route still provides savings over the
> Factory New Lycoming price. Additionally, with one of the kit builders,
>
> you are able to have your engine 'blueprinted' and somewhat customized
> (as John Cox would say 'hot rodded') like Allen outlined in his earlier
> post.
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> /Finishing
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Ackerman <johnag5b(at)cableone.net> |
> The easiest way to get economy is to fly higher (to a point), and
> go LOP on the mixture.
OK flamesuit on
Respectfully disagree. Somebody from Embry-Riddle Florida once (4-5
years ago?) posted a cogent argument that still air range is pretty
much independent of altitude and dependent only on power setting. I've
lost the reference, but I did a crude thermodynamic analysis and sure
enough, got the same result. I'm way too lazy to repeat the analysis
unless forced.
What altitude gets you is more speed at the same range.
John Ackerman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "arthurww" <arthur(at)cftech.co.uk> |
Anyone using Sanchem Safeguard instead of chromate conversion coatings?
I thought I read some were using but search fails to find any refs.
Regards
Arthur
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68784#68784
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net> |
I'm adding a small hat-shelf behind the baggage compartment for jackets,
maps, etc, and other 'light but bulky" luggage.
Will my -10 fall out of the sky? If I placard it will it be OK?
Don't miss the sarcasm.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: James K Hovis
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Flutter and dynamic divergence are REAL issues every airframe designer
(and for that matter, pilot) has to deal with especially so for
higher-performance aircraft. There are two ways to set Vne in FAR Part
23. One, do ground vibration tests to find resonant frequencies (mainly
shake the crap out of it and see if anything falls off) of the airframe,
then go out and flight test to find its flutter point, then set the Vne
at few per cent below this speed. The other is to use the canned Vne
minimum speed formula based on wing loading. The canned formula is based
on statistics from certified aircraft that if you set Vne at this speed
or below, you won't encounter flutter. I suspect Van's took the
conservative approach and set Vne based on the canned formula. Now as
Van points out, weight affects flutter. Balance of control surfaces
affect flutter (see Steve Whitman's crash several years ago), and
horsepower available affects flutter. Most low-power spam-cans don't
have the power to ever approach Vne except in steep dives, while adding
power means the top speed capable (that point where the power available
curve crosses the power required for level flight curve) creeps ever
closer to the flutter point. Now, don't get me wrong, if someone want to
drop in a 300hp engine into an RV, they are more than welcome to do it.
However, they should get a professional test pilot to verify the Vne and
flutter point for the configuration or get training on how to react when
flutter happens (the time from flutter onset to complete divergence can
be REAL small). Understanding the full ramifications of modifications to
the original design and testing for it may save someone's life in the
end.
JKH
On 10/18/06, John W. Cox wrote:
Let me respond right here that the disgusting phrase "Hot Rodding"
that
I have used in the past is a tongue in cheek mumble that VAN
regularly
uses and for the benefit of Ken Scott who lurks on this list and
tattles
on all who modify this great aircraft. I have a lot of respect for
Randy who built a "By the book, no deviation allowed" RV-10.
However, I
encourage and support those who modify this great basic entry
cruiser
aircraft into what it deserves to become. The most prolific and
popular
4 place kit built aircraft on the planet. I am a proponent of
multi-screen glass efis, higher compression pistons, improved
induction,
improved cooling, improved exhaust, improved cowling, improved
braking,
improved aesthetics, improved graphics and improved composite work.
The
phrase that builders would fall out of the sky or suffer
catastrophic
control flutter by making such logical improvements was from the
editor
of the RVator. I don't buy it, I have the same passion that VAN did
when he Hot Rodded the Playboy into his first RV.
I have 283 ideas (and growing) for improving this great design. Many
of
those are being incorporated with aircraft builders willing to move
off
the "plans only" construction concept. Don't get me wrong, I respect
those of you who do not deviate. I though, am waiting for a
resolution
of the 51% rule before moving ahead with my plans for Builder Assist
-
Commercially. I think that Tim, Scott and Deems are doing a great
job
of growing the spirit of the Home Building Community on this post
and on
their websites. It is with tremendous thrill and pride that I
acknowledge I am but a small part of this 650 kits sold, 55 kits
flying
and lurker community. They just keep getting better and better. I
wish
more was done at VANS to improve the quality, update the publication
and
speed the boxing and shipping process. If Ken Krueger comes to our
dinner Friday, this will be a point worth sharing.
I am praying that Scott flies to Casa Grande next weekend so he can
fly
home with Grand Champion - Copperstate. I will help reimburse him
for
fuel if he does so. Ray, Scott and Ranae deserve it. The rest you
need
to at least view their pictures. At 10 mega pixels he did not
scrimp on
the quality. Not on his motorcycle, his hangar, his bicycle, his
partnership or that fabulous aircraft. Congrats again Ray for
providing
Scott's continuity and to Ranae's patience.
Where is James McClow to share in all this excitement?
John #600
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems
Davis
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:49 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Kelly, there are options w/ AeroSport or BPA/Mattituck or the other
'authorized Lyc builders' I believe that Tim's engine was and
Overhauled
engine from Aerosport. By overhauled I think the only parts not new
were
the case and the crank. Another option (the one I'm using w/ BPA) is
the
Lyc 'experimental kit', where Lyc shipped all New parts to the
builder
(my understanding is that these are the same parts as the certified
engine) and the builder assembles the engine and puts their name
plate
(experimental) on it. Going this route still provides savings over
the
Factory New Lycoming price. Additionally, with one of the kit
builders,
you are able to have your engine 'blueprinted' and somewhat
customized
(as John Cox would say 'hot rodded') like Allen outlined in his
earlier
post.
Deems Davis # 406
/Finishing
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Naviga
tor?RV10-List - NEW MATRONICS WEB F= tronics.com">
- bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin. =
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Walter" <pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au> |
One of the recent posts states a very good point.
On one side of the coin Van bolts a 125 horse engine in a play boy and
increase's the the power by 90 percent or so and improves the plane out
of sight. On the other side Vic fits his RV 10 with 325 neddies, an
increase of 25 percent and some deem it to be down right dangerous.
Each to thier own.
P.D.W
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Vne and flutter (was engines) |
| From: | "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann(at)baesystems.com> |
Assumptions:
Vne is based on IAS, and for the -10 is 200kts @ 5000'.
Vne is adjusted by 1.5% for each 1000ft of alt.
At 20000ft, Vne is therefore 15(000)*1.5% less than 200kts (ie 155kts
Indicated)
Check out the attached photo from a turbocharged -10 operating here in
Oz. Yes that is 152 kts at 20120' (Note the TAS in the bottom left
corner and yes, they are knots!)
If published Vne is 200kts at sea level, Vne @ 20000' is close to 140kts
(70% of 200kts)
If published Vne is 200kts at 8000', Vne @ 20000' is close to 164kts
(82% of 200kts)
Fast - yes, but a bit too close to the edge for this little black duck!
I would be interested if anyone knows what the designed Vne (and
associated altitude) actually is.
FLY SAFE
Ron
187 finishing.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Thursday, 19 October 2006 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Flutter and dynamic divergence are REAL issues every airframe designer
(and for that matter, pilot) has to deal with especially so for
higher-performance aircraft. There are two ways to set Vne in FAR Part
23. One, do ground vibration tests to find resonant frequencies (mainly
shake the crap out of it and see if anything falls off) of the airframe,
then go out and flight test to find its flutter point, then set the Vne
at few per cent below this speed. The other is to use the canned Vne
minimum speed formula based on wing loading. The canned formula is based
on statistics from certified aircraft that if you set Vne at this speed
or below, you won't encounter flutter. I suspect Van's took the
conservative approach and set Vne based on the canned formula. Now as
Van points out, weight affects flutter. Balance of control surfaces
affect flutter (see Steve Whitman's crash several years ago), and
horsepower available affects flutter. Most low-power spam-cans don't
have the power to ever approach Vne except in steep dives, while adding
power means the top speed capable (that point where the power available
curve crosses the power required for level flight curve) creeps ever
closer to the flutter point. Now, don't get me wrong, if someone want to
drop in a 300hp engine into an RV, they are more than welcome to do it.
However, they should get a professional test pilot to verify the Vne and
flutter point for the configuration or get training on how to react when
flutter happens (the time from flutter onset to complete divergence can
be REAL small). Understanding the full ramifications of modifications to
the original design and testing for it may save someone's life in the
end.
JKH
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vne and flutter (was engines) |
Ron,
I believe the following link will answer your question.
_http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf_
(http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf)
Dave Syvertson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nose Gear Building Tip |
| From: | "zackrv8" <zackrv8(at)verizon.net> |
I went to installed the nose gear today. In particular, the link collar assembly.
Vans states, "The nose gear Elastomers will have to be compressed in order
to install the bolt. Do this by either pushing down on the forward end on the
aircraft (yeah... right!) and/or lifting up on the aft end."
YGTBSM! Can you imagine pivoting the fuselage on the nose gear by pulling up
on the tail end? That's just plain stupid and unsafe! I tried pulling down
on the front and hardly moved the thing.
Below is a pic of what I did. Works great and much safer! Hope this helps someone
when they get to this stage of construction.
Zack
--------
RV8 #80125
RV10 # 40512
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68847#68847
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06309_906.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06311_898.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06305_426.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Building Tip |
Did you get the bolt through yet? I used your same system, like a lot of
others (posted before) but still couldn't get enough down pressure on the
elastomers until after I hung the engine and then still had to get two guys
to add their weight to each side of the engine mount to compress the
elastomers enough to pin the bolt through.
Russ Daves
N710RV
First Flight 7/28/06
----- Original Message -----
From: "zackrv8" <zackrv8(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 8:52 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Nose Gear Building Tip
>
> I went to installed the nose gear today. In particular, the link collar
> assembly. Vans states, "The nose gear Elastomers will have to be
> compressed in order to install the bolt. Do this by either pushing down on
> the forward end on the aircraft (yeah... right!) and/or lifting up on the
> aft end."
>
> YGTBSM! Can you imagine pivoting the fuselage on the nose gear by
> pulling up on the tail end? That's just plain stupid and unsafe! I tried
> pulling down on the front and hardly moved the thing.
>
> Below is a pic of what I did. Works great and much safer! Hope this
> helps someone when they get to this stage of construction.
>
> Zack
>
> --------
> RV8 #80125
> RV10 # 40512
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68847#68847
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06309_906.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06311_898.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06305_426.jpg
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Link McGarity <wv4i(at)bellsouth.net> |
Not likely, unless you're already near your aft CG limit already, or
some other unrelated factor comes into play. But, you should compute
operating weight CG for each and every flight, including at takeoff and
predicted landing fuel loads. And, you should determine, somehow, the
mean fuselage station for extra compartments such as you describe, and
the weight at such station. The Garmin GPS x96 series have an excellent
weight and balance capability for such a computation that takes seconds
to compute.
I have a neighbor that once owned an RV-6, and just could not get the
landings down. Enter another neighbor, high time experimental driver and
tail dragger type (and also ex F16/F4 driver) and he could not get it
either. Go to weigh the airplane and it's 70+ pounds at the tail while
my RV6 is 52. That's a BIG difference in moment-arm for just 18 lbs,
because it's so far away fm the 0 station, if you will. Go figure. Your
extra compartment is a great idea, but it also has the longest arm of
any station where the weight varies. The 70+ lb tail was not reflected
in the prior owner's Wt & Bal computations, EOW CG to be exact. Did
somebody just decide to make the tail somehow heavier, beefier, etc.?
Who knows? Nothing was obvious. The point is that with experimentals,
the FAA has given the owner or builder much more latitude to hang
themselves. This discussion applies to any mods that deviate fm the kit
manufacturer's plans.
I'm not without sense of humor, or ability to be sarcastic, to say the
least, but I also appreciate the apparent background and knowledge of
many of the posters to this type forums. I've been flying professionally
since 1979, and at this point I'm really into experimental flying for
education and enjoyment. Others?
Link McGarity
#40622 elevator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com |
Niko you'll get 10-40% more range depending upon altitude, additionally with
less oxygen you cannot burn as much fuel at altitude so your power goes down
but you're moving faster because the air is "thinner"...if you could get to
up upper levels it gets even better. That's why jets use a lot of fuel
getting to altitude but use very little fuel at altitude.
To get to higher altitudes you need one of several engine types: rocket, jet
or turbo/turbine types. With normal aspiration you can only get so high
before you run our of "air". Mooney created a sort of mini charge at one time
by a small recirculation unit that would give you about an other 1"+ of boost
on MP. Maybe Kelly could tell us how they did this and if one could use
that in an experimental engine to give you a little more boost with out the need
for a tubro, waste gate, fans etc.
Patrick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stovall Todd Lt Col AF/A4RX" <Todd.Stovall(at)pentagon.af.mil> |
Arthur,
I'll be using it this weekend to prep my VS and Rudder for priming. I'll give
you a pirep Monday to let you know the results.
Todd
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of arthurww
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:38 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Sanchem
Anyone using Sanchem Safeguard instead of chromate conversion coatings?
I thought I read some were using but search fails to find any refs.
Regards
Arthur
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68784#68784
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Sorry to disappoint you, but Mooney's "Ram Air" was nothing more than a
bypass of the airfilter, and was better located than the air filter to
get straight-through flow into the fuel injection servo. Mooney's
standard filter location was on a low pressure area at the bottom of the
cowl, where the ram air inlet was on the front right behind the prop.
Lopresti did it a bit better, extending the inlet out to be closer to
the prop blade in optimized location to get a bit of "compression" from
the prop.
You aren't going to do better than atmospheric without going to a turbo
or supercharger.
Everything else is just improving the physics of getting atmospheric
into the engine.
GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com wrote:
> To get to higher altitudes you need one of several engine types:
> rocket, jet or turbo/turbine types. With normal aspiration you can
> only get so high before you run our of "air". Mooney created a sort
> of mini charge at one time by a small recirculation unit that would
> give you about an other 1"+ of boost on MP. Maybe Kelly could tell
> us how they did this and if one could use that in an experimental
> engine to give you a little more boost with out the need for a tubro,
> waste gate, fans etc.
>
> Patrick
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Building Tip |
| From: | "zackrv8" <zackrv8(at)verizon.net> |
Russ..
This way of compressing the Elastomers is a piece of cake. It really is. I
didn't research it in the archives. I was in the shop assembling this thing and
didn't like the way Van was recommending.
The bolt went through easily. No problem. I ractheted the come-a-long tight
but wasn't extremely tight. I did it all by myself with no help at all. It
works.
Zack
dav1111(at)cox.net wrote:
> Did you get the bolt through yet? I used your same system, like a lot of
> others (posted before) but still couldn't get enough down pressure on the
> elastomers until after I hung the engine and then still had to get two guys
> to add their weight to each side of the engine mount to compress the
> elastomers enough to pin the bolt through.
>
> Russ Daves
> N710RV
> First Flight 7/28/06
>
> ---
--------
RV8 #80125
RV10 # 40512
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68908#68908
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Building Tip |
Not sure what your concern about jacking up on the tail is, other than
you have to have enough wt forward of the main gear to get the leverage.
Mooneys use the same Lord discs, and if the nose gear angle needs
adjustment it is much easier to jack the tail than to get out
compression tool to hold the discs compressed while you remove the bolt
and insert a spacer.
zackrv8 wrote:
>
> I went to installed the nose gear today. In particular, the link collar assembly.
Vans states, "The nose gear Elastomers will have to be compressed in order
to install the bolt. Do this by either pushing down on the forward end on
the aircraft (yeah... right!) and/or lifting up on the aft end."
>
> YGTBSM! Can you imagine pivoting the fuselage on the nose gear by pulling
up on the tail end? That's just plain stupid and unsafe! I tried pulling down
on the front and hardly moved the thing.
>
> Below is a pic of what I did. Works great and much safer! Hope this helps
someone when they get to this stage of construction.
>
> Zack
>
> --------
> RV8 #80125
> RV10 # 40512
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68847#68847
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06309_906.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06311_898.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06305_426.jpg
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bobby J. Hughes" <bhughes(at)qnsi.net> |
This is the data for airspeed vs pressure increase. Assuming the perfect
setup.
Knots Inches of Mercury
60 0.1727
80 0.3075
100 0.4814
110 0.5832
120 0.6950
130 0.8168
140 0.9488
150 1.0910
175 1.4918
200 1.9589
225 2.4943
Ram air can help.
Bobby
40116
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Sorry to disappoint you, but Mooney's "Ram Air" was nothing more than a
bypass of the airfilter, and was better located than the air filter to
get straight-through flow into the fuel injection servo. Mooney's
standard filter location was on a low pressure area at the bottom of the
cowl, where the ram air inlet was on the front right behind the prop.
Lopresti did it a bit better, extending the inlet out to be closer to
the prop blade in optimized location to get a bit of "compression" from
the prop.
You aren't going to do better than atmospheric without going to a turbo
or supercharger.
Everything else is just improving the physics of getting atmospheric
into the engine.
GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com wrote:
> To get to higher altitudes you need one of several engine types:
> rocket, jet or turbo/turbine types. With normal aspiration you can
> only get so high before you run our of "air". Mooney created a sort
> of mini charge at one time by a small recirculation unit that would
> give you about an other 1"+ of boost on MP. Maybe Kelly could tell
> us how they did this and if one could use that in an experimental
> engine to give you a little more boost with out the need for a tubro,
> waste gate, fans etc.
>
> Patrick
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Building Tip |
| From: | "zackrv8" <zackrv8(at)verizon.net> |
OK. You could probably jack the tail up, but not by yourself. After the mains
start to leave the ground (and they will because you will not get enough compression),
the fuselage becomes very unsteady and wants to roll. If you had more
people to watch and steady the fuselage, go for it. It still takes alot of
force to compress the elastomers. The full weight of the aircraft is not there
yet, i.e., wings, tail, engine, etc...
Zack
Kellym wrote:
> Not sure what your concern about jacking up on the tail is, other than
> you have to have enough wt forward of the main gear to get the leverage.
> Mooneys use the same Lord discs, and if the nose gear angle needs
> adjustment it is much easier to jack the tail than to get out
> compression tool to hold the discs compressed while you remove the bolt
> and insert a spacer.
> zackrv8 wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I went to installed the nose gear today. In particular, the link collar assembly.
Vans states, "The nose gear Elastomers will have to be compressed in
order to install the bolt. Do this by either pushing down on the forward end
on the aircraft (yeah... right!) and/or lifting up on the aft end."
> >
> > YGTBSM! Can you imagine pivoting the fuselage on the nose gear by pulling
up on the tail end? That's just plain stupid and unsafe! I tried pulling
down on the front and hardly moved the thing.
> >
> > Below is a pic of what I did. Works great and much safer! Hope this helps
someone when they get to this stage of construction.
> >
> > Zack
> >
> > --------
> > RV8 #80125
> > RV10 # 40512
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68847#68847
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Attachments:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06309_906.jpg
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06311_898.jpg
> > http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06305_426.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
RV8 #80125
RV10 # 40512
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68914#68914
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Douglas" <bsponcil(at)belinblank.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vne and flutter (was engines) |
I was at the Cherokee Pilots Assoc fly-in a few years back and talked to
Karl Bergey, one of the lead engineers at Piper during the late 60s
early 70s. Anyway, I asked why the Vne was different between the Archer
and Warrior because as far as I knew there wasn't any difference between
the airframes. Expecting to hear "Well we beefed up this or that,
extended the HS by 1 inch, etc" I was surprised instead to hear that Vne
was calculated (at least at Piper) solely by the dive test during
certification. Whatever the testpilot felt comfortable taking the plane
up to in the dive, subtract 20% and you had Vne. The only reason the
Warrior and Archer have different Vne is because the testpilot flying
the Archer went faster in the dive.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is how Vans calculates theirs as well.
-Brian
#40497
Iowa City, IA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Thursday, 19 October 2006 2:13 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Flutter and dynamic divergence are REAL issues every airframe
designer (and for that matter, pilot) has to deal with especially so for
higher-performance aircraft. There are two ways to set Vne in FAR Part
23. One, do ground vibration tests to find resonant frequencies (mainly
shake the crap out of it and see if anything falls off) of the airframe,
then go out and flight test to find its flutter point, then set the Vne
at few per cent below this speed. The other is to use the canned Vne
minimum speed formula based on wing loading. The canned formula is based
on statistics from certified aircraft that if you set Vne at this speed
or below, you won't encounter flutter. I suspect Van's took the
conservative approach and set Vne based on the canned formula. Now as
Van points out, weight affects flutter. Balance of control surfaces
affect flutter (see Steve Whitman's crash several years ago), and
horsepower available affects flutter. Most low-power spam-cans don't
have the power to ever approach Vne except in steep dives, while adding
power means the top speed capable (that point where the power available
curve crosses the power required for level flight curve) creeps ever
closer to the flutter point. Now, don't get me wrong, if someone want to
drop in a 300hp engine into an RV, they are more than welcome to do it.
However, they should get a professional test pilot to verify the Vne and
flutter point for the configuration or get training on how to react when
flutter happens (the time from flutter onset to complete divergence can
be REAL small). Understanding the full ramifications of modifications to
the original design and testing for it may save someone's life in the
end.
JKH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rickgray(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Building Tip |
2 'C' clamps over the elastomers...one on the px side and one on the drivers side.
Put some tape over the powdercoat (like I did) and you won't even scratch it!
One person, and....you compress where it's meant to be compressed. Took 3 minutes
and it was done.
BTW...this was without the engine hung.....piece of cake!
Rick in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/
> OK. You could probably jack the tail up, but not by yourself. After the mains
start to leave the ground (and they will because you will not get enough compression),
the fuselage becomes very unsteady and wants to roll. If you had
more people to watch and steady the fuselage, go for it. It still takes alot
of force to compress the elastomers. The full weight of the aircraft is not there
yet, i.e., wings, tail, engine, etc...
>
> Zack
>
>
>
> Kellym wrote:
> > Not sure what your concern about jacking up on the tail is, other than
> > you have to have enough wt forward of the main gear to get the leverage.
> > Mooneys use the same Lord discs, and if the nose gear angle needs
> > adjustment it is much easier to jack the tail than to get out
> > compression tool to hold the discs compressed while you remove the bolt
> > and insert a spacer.
> > zackrv8 wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I went to installed the nose gear today. In particular, the link collar
assembly. Vans states, "The nose gear Elastomers will have to be compressed
in order to install the bolt. Do this by either pushing down on the forward end
on the aircraft (yeah... right!) and/or lifting up on the aft end."
> > >
> > > YGTBSM! Can you imagine pivoting the fuselage on the nose gear by pulling
up on the tail end? That's just plain stupid and unsafe! I tried pulling
down on the front and hardly moved the thing.
> > >
> > > Below is a pic of what I did. Works great and much safer! Hope this
helps someone when they get to this stage of construction.
> > >
> > > Zack
> > >
> > > --------
> > > RV8 #80125
> > > RV10 # 40512
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Read this topic online here:
> > >
> > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68847#68847
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Attachments:
> > >
> > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06309_906.jpg
> > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06311_898.jpg
> > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06305_426.jpg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --------
> RV8 #80125
> RV10 # 40512
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68914#68914
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com |
Thanks, Kelly...enjoy the rest of your trip...
P
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vne and flutter (was engines) |
Hello Brian,
I don't think Van's does it this way, they most probably go along with
FAR 23.1505 and calculate this speeds, similar to certified airplanes
(at least how it is certified today). It's a function of several
parameters so you get your flight envelope (see FAR 23.333) and have
your limitations set FAR (23.335). Even kit planes are made today with
some since background.
br Werner
Brian Douglas wrote:
>
> I was at the Cherokee Pilots Assoc fly-in a few years back and talked
> to Karl Bergey, one of the lead engineers at Piper during the late 60s
> early 70s. Anyway, I asked why the Vne was different between the
> Archer and Warrior because as far as I knew there wasn't any
> difference between the airframes. Expecting to hear "Well we beefed
> up this or that, extended the HS by 1 inch, etc" I was surprised
> instead to hear that Vne was calculated (at least at Piper) solely by
> the dive test during certification. Whatever the testpilot felt
> comfortable taking the plane up to in the dive, subtract 20% and you
> had Vne. The only reason the Warrior and Archer have different Vne is
> because the testpilot flying the Archer went faster in the dive.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if this is how Vans calculates theirs as well.
>
>
>
> -Brian
>
> #40497
> Iowa City, IA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]*On Behalf Of*
> James K Hovis
> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 October 2006 2:13 AM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
> Flutter and dynamic divergence are REAL issues every airframe
> designer (and for that matter, pilot) has to deal with
> especially so for higher-performance aircraft. There are two
> ways to set Vne in FAR Part 23. One, do ground vibration tests
> to find resonant frequencies (mainly shake the crap out of it
> and see if anything falls off) of the airframe, then go out
> and flight test to find its flutter point, then set the Vne at
> few per cent below this speed. The other is to use the canned
> Vne minimum speed formula based on wing loading. The canned
> formula is based on statistics from certified aircraft that if
> you set Vne at this speed or below, you won't encounter
> flutter. I suspect Van's took the conservative approach and
> set Vne based on the canned formula. Now as Van points out,
> weight affects flutter. Balance of control surfaces affect
> flutter (see Steve Whitman's crash several years ago), and
> horsepower available affects flutter. Most low-power spam-cans
> don't have the power to ever approach Vne except in steep
> dives, while adding power means the top speed capable (that
> point where the power available curve crosses the power
> required for level flight curve) creeps ever closer to the
> flutter point. Now, don't get me wrong, if someone want to
> drop in a 300hp engine into an RV, they are more than welcome
> to do it. However, they should get a professional test pilot
> to verify the Vne and flutter point for the configuration or
> get training on how to react when flutter happens (the time
> from flutter onset to complete divergence can be REAL small).
> Understanding the full ramifications of modifications to the
> original design and testing for it may save someone's life in
> the end.
>
> JKH
>
>
>
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Vne and flutter (was engines) |
For each RV-3, a flutter test to 10% above Vne was recommended by Van's
aircraft. I read a little bit about this before my flight test.
In an attempt to simplify from what I have read:
The Vne is an airspeed based on analysis and design.
This is an indicated airspeed (IAS), or Part 23 calls this an equivalent
airspeed (EAS). The EAS being an IAS that uses a calibrated instrument with a
corrected pitot/static system.
Flutter speed will vary from one aircraft to another of the same design.
Although it is easy to identify when you've reached flutter speed, because
major components SUDDENLY separate from the rest of the aircraft.
The flutter speed is a true airspeed (TAS).
Flutter speed is a variable number, because the actual construction and
alignment of the aircraft WILL change this number. Especially sensitive are the
hinged weight and balance of the flight controls.
Given that Vne is less than the flutter speed at sea level;
IF the IAS of Vne can be maintained with altitude, at some altitude Vne WILL
exceed the flutter speed. (This is a bad thing.)
Reading between the lines, here is what I am hearing Van's Aircraft say:
With the Lyc. 540 engine of 260 horsepower, in level flight the IAS will not
exceed the flutter speed of the aircraft. (Most flight time will be below
12,500'. Very seldom will a flight occur near 18,000'.)
With a turbo normalized Lyc. 540 engine (or an engine with more than 260
horsepower) in level flight at some higher altitude, the IAS could exceed the
flutter speed. And will exceed the flutter speed, if the IAS is allowed to
increase at the start of a descent from a high enough cruise altitude.
(Flutter is a high frequency thing, which we humans don't feel very well.
Major component separation is a low frequency occurrence, which we would feel.
:-) )
Regards,
Jim Ayers
RV-3 sn 50
In a message dated 10/19/2006 7:11:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bsponcil(at)belinblank.org writes:
I was at the Cherokee Pilots Assoc fly-in a few years back and talked to
Karl Bergey, one of the lead engineers at Piper during the late 60s early 70s.
Anyway, I asked why the Vne was different between the Archer and Warrior
because as far as I knew there wasn't any difference between the airframes.
Expecting to hear "Well we beefed up this or that, extended the HS by 1 inch,
etc" I was surprised instead to hear that Vne was calculated (at least at Piper)
solely by the dive test during certification. Whatever the testpilot felt
comfortable taking the plane up to in the dive, subtract 20% and you had Vne.
The only reason the Warrior and Archer have different Vne is because the
testpilot flying the Archer went faster in the dive.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is how Vans calculates theirs as well.
-Brian
#40497
Iowa City, IA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dual Lightspeed? |
| From: | "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston(at)popsound.com> |
Hey all -
Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I combed the archives and
couldn't really find what I was looking for. I've got a couple opinions
privately, but thought I'd pose the question to the list. I'm getting
ready to order an engine, and originally I thought I'd go dual
lightspeed ignition, but as I get closer, I'm starting to chicken out
and am thinking of going single lightspeed / slick mag. The aircraft
is all electric, dual battery, and 2 alternators ( main, and SD-8 as
standby). Can I get a few people to weigh in?
Thanks
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net <http://www.perfectlygoodairplane.net/>
(updated!!)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Thanks, Kelly...enjoy the rest of your trip...
P
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Lightspeed? |
With the batteries and backup alternator you are planning I'd definitely
NOT put in a mag. Klaus (Mr. Lightspeed) has a simple backup battery
schematic he provides if you don't want to do multiple buses. No
question it's better to have both plugs firing at the same time!
Randy Lervold
www.rv-3.com
www.rv-8.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Johnston
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:38 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
Hey all -
Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I combed the archives
and couldn't really find what I was looking for. I've got a couple
opinions privately, but thought I'd pose the question to the list. I'm
getting ready to order an engine, and originally I thought I'd go dual
lightspeed ignition, but as I get closer, I'm starting to chicken out
and am thinking of going single lightspeed / slick mag. The aircraft
is all electric, dual battery, and 2 alternators ( main, and SD-8 as
standby). Can I get a few people to weigh in?
Thanks
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net (updated!!)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:38 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Thanks, Kelly...enjoy the rest of your trip...
P
- The RV10-List Email Forum - -->
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List - NEW
MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - --> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
--> - List Contribution Web Site - Thank you for your
generous support! -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-->
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dual Lightspeed? |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
I ran dual for 800 hours on one bat and one alt on an RV. Never worried
one bit.
Mike
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris
Johnston
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:38 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
Hey all -
Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I combed the archives and
couldn't really find what I was looking for. I've got a couple opinions
privately, but thought I'd pose the question to the list. I'm getting
ready to order an engine, and originally I thought I'd go dual
lightspeed ignition, but as I get closer, I'm starting to chicken out
and am thinking of going single lightspeed / slick mag. The aircraft
is all electric, dual battery, and 2 alternators ( main, and SD-8 as
standby). Can I get a few people to weigh in?
Thanks
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net <http://www.perfectlygoodairplane.net/>
(updated!!)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Thanks, Kelly...enjoy the rest of your trip...
P
- The RV10-List Email Forum -
--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-->
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
-->
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-->
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dual Lightspeed? |
| From: | "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> |
Chris,
I opted for dual LSE Plasma IIIs and have dual alternators and
electrical busses. The point that Tim makes is a valid one - the wiring
from the crank sensor must be very well routed/secured. With the dual
system there's a pair of cables but they are running together. I
suppose one could route one down each side of the engine to provide
isolation in case of some sort of mechanical event that damage them.
Bob
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris
Johnston
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:38 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
Hey all -
Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I combed the archives and
couldn't really find what I was looking for. I've got a couple opinions
privately, but thought I'd pose the question to the list. I'm getting
ready to order an engine, and originally I thought I'd go dual
lightspeed ignition, but as I get closer, I'm starting to chicken out
and am thinking of going single lightspeed / slick mag. The aircraft
is all electric, dual battery, and 2 alternators ( main, and SD-8 as
standby). Can I get a few people to weigh in?
Thanks
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net <http://www.perfectlygoodairplane.net/>
(updated!!)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Thanks, Kelly...enjoy the rest of your trip...
P
- The RV10-List Email Forum -
--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-->
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
-->
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-->
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gorejr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Lightspeed? |
Before you decide you might talk to some larger players in the engine building
business like BPE. They are building my engine and said they would not consider
building it with either the Lightspeed or Lazar systems. They have had to
many problems. They are building mine with 2 Bendix mags. As an aside I have
the Lazar on my mooney and have not had a problem. There is supposed to be
a new system coming out this next year that is superior to these 2 according to
BPE. Good luck! Jim
>
> From: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston(at)popsound.com>
> Date: 2006/10/19 Thu PM 01:38:15 EDT
> To:
> Subject: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
>
> Hey all -
>
> Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I combed the archives and
> couldn't really find what I was looking for. I've got a couple opinions
> privately, but thought I'd pose the question to the list. I'm getting
> ready to order an engine, and originally I thought I'd go dual
> lightspeed ignition, but as I get closer, I'm starting to chicken out
> and am thinking of going single lightspeed / slick mag. The aircraft
> is all electric, dual battery, and 2 alternators ( main, and SD-8 as
> standby). Can I get a few people to weigh in?
>
> Thanks
> cj
> #40410
> fuse
> www.perfectlygoodairplane.net <http://www.perfectlygoodairplane.net/>
> (updated!!)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:38 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
> Thanks, Kelly...enjoy the rest of your trip...
>
> P
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Walter" <pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au> |
A recent post talked of a turbo charged RV 10 here in Australia. I seem
to remember earlier talk on this site saying that this would not be
possible due to additional up front weight in what was already a nose
heavy plane.
Are we about to see an influx of turbo tens ?
P.D.W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Everything is possible. It is a matter of evaluating the alternatives,
testing and understanding the results. TNIO provides an interesting
discussion if done comprehensively. Sounds like our brothers across the
pond have done it and not fallen yet. Bet the had to shed the stock/
restrictive cowl from the factory though.
Interesting.
JWC #600
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Walter
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 5:41 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Turbo
A recent post talked of a turbo charged RV 10 here in Australia. I seem
to remember earlier talk on this site saying that this would not be
possible due to additional up front weight in what was already a nose
heavy plane.
Are we about to see an influx of turbo tens ?
P.D.W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Marcus Cooper" <coop85(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Dual Lightspeed? |
One last (probably not) consideration for you aside from the redundancy
issues. When I was looking at the Lightspeed options, I talked to Klaus and
he indicated about 90% of the performance advantages are obtained with the
first system and there is a limited performance increase by using dual
electronic ignition systems. Since I had not already put in the dual
alternator/battery setup I opted for a Lightspeed/standard mag setup. My
only backup battery is in the Dynon EFIS I use as the standby instrument.
Marcus
40286
60 hours and loving it
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Johnston
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:38 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
Hey all -
Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I combed the archives and
couldn't really find what I was looking for. I've got a couple opinions
privately, but thought I'd pose the question to the list. I'm getting ready
to order an engine, and originally I thought I'd go dual lightspeed
ignition, but as I get closer, I'm starting to chicken out and am thinking
of going single lightspeed / slick mag. The aircraft is all electric, dual
battery, and 2 alternators ( main, and SD-8 as standby). Can I get a few
people to weigh in?
Thanks
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net <http://www.perfectlygoodairplane.net/>
(updated!!)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Thanks, Kelly...enjoy the rest of your trip...
P
- The RV10-List Email Forum -
--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-->
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
-->
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-->
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ivo welch <ivowel(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vne and flutter (was engines) |
I am not an expert, but Vans seems to be very conservative when it comes
to such issues as specifications, Vne, etc. It would not surprise me if
there is some wiggle room. Alas, I would feel more comfortable with a
ballistic parachute if I were to try to exceed Vne on a semi-regular
basis. An airplane, even an RV-10, is replaceable---you are not.
I have a 325hp engine of in my aircraft, which is really only the 260hp
engine fine-tuned a little bit better. I have not flown the 260hp
engine, but from what I have observed in flight, the difference in
performance seems to be very small. A turbo at high altitude, however,
might make a real difference. of course, you then need oxygen, too. It
becomes a much more complex (and potentially pilot-exhausting)
exercise. with a parachute, this could be a nice thing to do, so.
PS: n325hp is still for sale, now at the reduced price of $209,000.
regards,
/iaw
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nikolaos Napoli <owl40188(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi John=0A=0AI do in general agree with you thats why I made the statement
=0A "I think part of the problem with the many of the academic articles is
that they are trying to calculate maximum range irregardless of what powe
r an engine can operate at."=0A=0AAn engine has to operate at probably the
20% to 40% power range at low altitude to get equivalent range, which I bel
ieve is not advisable with our current crop of engines. Partly due too low
engine temperatures and partly due to there not being enough fuel to get a
good even fuel./ air mixture for efficient combustion. So from a practica
l point of view, for maximum range, you set the minimum power thats advisab
le to operate the engine at which in turn sets your fuel burn. So in the R
V10 case I believe that for max range your power setting turns out to be th
e same for all altitudes which is say around 45 to 50%. At that point you
have to climb to get better range.=0A=0AThe article in the link is interest
ing and I have read several similar articles in the past as this question h
ad preplexed me for a while. They all reached the same conclusion because
they are not accounting for the specific operating requirements of the engi
nes.=0A=0ABest regards and thanks for your input as I don't fully understa
nd all this.=0A =0ANiko=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: John
Ackerman =0ATo: rv10-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Thu
rsday, October 19, 2006 10:55:34 PM=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
net>=0A=0ANiko, here's the deal as I see it:=0A=0A For maximum range, th
e airplane must be flown at the airspeed/AOA for =0Aminimum drag. That spee
d increases with altitude, although the minimum =0Adrag remains pretty much
constant. The minimum power required increases =0Adirectly with the speed,
i.e. power equals speed times drag. The speed =0Avs. altitude data you pre
sent below are at _constant_power_, and for =0Athat condition, you are cert
ainly correct. The reason for the speed =0Aincrease is that at the higher a
ltitudes, the speed more closely =0Aapproximates the speed for minimum drag
.=0A=0A Constant power is not the maximum range condition, though. For m
aximum =0Arange, the power is really low for most prop/recip aircraft ' w
ell =0Abelow 50% at lower altitudes ' and it increases with altitude at t
he =0Asame rate that the speed does - hence constant max range with altitud
e. =0AAgain, the range numbers presented below reflect the fact that at =0A
higher altitude the plane is being operated closer to the ideal =0AAOA/airs
peed for minimum drag.=0A=0A Yep, it takes energy (fuel) to climb to alt
itude, but if you fly =0Aright, you get it back when you descend.=0A=0A
There's a really good reason for flying higher if you want range - =0Amany
of us are range limited by our physiological needs, and at =0Aaltitude you
get the same miles/gallon and range, but at a higher =0Aspeed, so you can g
o farther before your body (or your passenger's =0Abody) dictates a landing
.=0A=0AAll this stuff assumes constant engine efficiency. That approximatio
n =0Ais way better than the errors induced by my stick skills - maybe even
=0Amost folks' skills. It also assumes still air, but that's another story
=0Aentirely.=0A=0ABest wishes,=0AJohn Ackerman=0A=0A=0AOn Oct 19, 2006, at
2:58 PM, Nikolaos Napoli wrote:=0A=0A> Well I just looked at the Cessna 172
S POH=0A> for standard day=0A> =0A> at 2000 ft 73% BHP 9.9 gph 115 KTA
S=0A> at 4000 ft 73% BHP 9.9 gph 117 KTAS=0A> at 6000 ft 73% BHP 9.9 gp
h 119 KTAS=0A> =0A> For the same fuel flow at higher altitude you get a
higher speed thus =0A> a longer range.=0A> =0A> This is clearly depicted i
n the range curve of the 172s POH (Figure =0A> 5-9).=0A> =0A> at 55% power
=0A> at sea level 585 miles 101 KTAS=0A> at 120000 ft 605 miles 110 KT
AS=0A> =0A> I think part of the problem with the many of the academic arti
cles is =0A> that they are trying to calculate maximum range irregardless o
f what =0A> power an engine can operate at. If you set power to a certain
level =0A> as 70% than the higher altitude will get you a better =0A> range
. Obviously this does not acount for fuel burn to clim.=0A> =0A> Niko=0A>
=0A>=0A> ----- Original Message ----=0A> From: John Ackerman <johnag5b@cabl
eone.net>=0A> To: Nikolaos Napoli =0A> Sent: Thursday,
October 19, 2006 12:08:17 PM=0A> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines=0A>=0A
> Niko '=0A> Here's another take on it.=0A>=0A> http://selair.selkirk.b
c.ca/aerodynamics1/Performance/Page7.html=0A>=0A> Counterintuitive, ain't i
t?=0A> John=0A>=0A> On Oct 18, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Nikolaos Napoli wrote:=0A>
=0A> > John,=0A> > =0A> > I think Jesse is correct. You get a longer rang
e at altitude. Look=0A> > at it this way, if your true speed increases wit
h altitude the only=0A> > way your range could stay the same is if you are
burning more fuel =0A> for=0A> > the same power setting. I don't think tha
ts the case. Range and=0A> > speed both increase because the total drag is
a bit less due to the=0A> > less dense air.=0A> > =0A> >=0A> > Niko=0A> >
=0A> > 40188=0A> >=0A> >=0A> > ----- Original Message ----=0A> > From: Jess
e Saint =0A> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com=0A> > Sent: W
ednesday, October 18, 2006 1:44:59 PM=0A> > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: eng
usa.org>=0A> >=0A> > I don't know about thermodynamic analysis and all that
, but when we =0A> go=0A> > high,=0A> > we go further on a tank of gas. Ma
ybe it is just the issue of being=0A> > able to=0A> > more safely go LOP on
the mixture, which obviously makes some=0A> > difference,=0A> > which you
can't/shouldn't do at high power settings. I would have to=0A> > stank=0A>
> with whoever you quoted on this one, based on experience. But, I=0A> >
don't use=0A> > experience to establish truth, just to illustrate it, so I
could=0A> > certainly=0A> > be wrong based on my experience.=0A> >=0A> > Do
not archive.=0A> >=0A> > Jesse Saint=0A> > I-TEC, Inc.=0A> > jesse@itecusa
.org=0A> > www.itecusa.org=0A> > W: 352-465-4545=0A> > C: 352-427-0285=0A>
>=0A> > -----Original Message-----=0A> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matro
nics.com=0A> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of J
ohn=0A> > Ackerman=0A> > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:18 PM=0A> > To
: rv10-list(at)matronics.com=0A> > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines=0A> >
ne.net>=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> > > The easiest way to get economy is to fly
higher (to a point), and=0A> > > go LOP on the mixture.=0A> >=0A> > OK =97
flamesuit on =97=0A> > Respectfully disagree. Somebody from Embry-Riddle F
lorida once (4-5=0A> > years ago?) posted a cogent argument that still air
range is pretty=0A> > much independent of altitude and dependent only on po
wer setting. =0A> I've=0A> > lost the reference, but I did a crude thermody
namic analysis and sure=0A> > enough, got the same result. I'm way too lazy
to repeat the analysis=0A> > unless forced.=0A> >=0A> > What altitude gets
you is more speed at the same range.=0A> >=0A> > John Ackerman=0A> >=0A> >
=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> > --=0A> >=0A> >=0A> > -- - The RV10-L
ist Email Forumavigator?RV10-List"=0A> > target=_blank>http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?RV10sp; -=0A> > NEW MATRON/" "http://wiki.matroni
cs.com/";;=0A> > target=_blank>http://wiki.matronics.com< - List C
ontribution=0A> > Web Site nbsp; - The RV10-List A =0A> href="htt
p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"; target=_blank =0A> relp;
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMtarget=_blank p; - NEW =0A> MATRONICS LI
=========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Mags vs electronic ignition |
Please allow me to chime in on this issue.
Last week while preparing for takeoff in a friends Cirrus SR22, we began
to see and smell smoke in the cockpit. Within only a couple of seconds,
we had a face full of electrical smoke. We quickly shut off both the
batteries and alternators and opened the doors and began coughing. It
turned out the culprit was a "number two battery control relay circuit
board" which is located in the cockpit that fried.
Guess what....
the engine kept running
Although my 10 will have a dual electrical system, with dual
alternators, it certainly will have at least one mag!
You just don't have enough time to troubleshoot and isolate electrical
problems when the smoke starts, especially when you can't see or breath.
Chris Hukill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Billy" <billykay1(at)aol.com> |
Hello again,
I am the guy who started this subject about a week ago. Thank you all for participating.
I am still undecided at this point about the engine but your comments
have been helpful.
I trained as an A&P in the early 80s, worked for the airlines a while as a mechanic
(which does little for you O540 knowledge or generally sheet metal as well).
I currently fly for a small cargo airline using the 747-400s, which gets a
bit boring on 14 hour flights.
I did overhaul a cont. O300 and a lyc O235 back when I was learning to fly. They
seemed to run pretty much the same before and after overhaul.....Have previously
owned two older 172s one with the O300 and one with the O320. I cant remember
the O300 being that much smoother (could very well just be my memory) Also
a 150 a 152 a 210A and a 1976 182
Would like to connect with other 10 builders in the chicago area. I have a tail
kit and am pretty much done with section 9 and hope to start on section 10
before the end of the year.
One of the posted that struck a cord with me was from Scott Schmidt:
"Here is the truth with all of this, none of it really matters a lot.
They all seem like big decisions when you are planning and building but
when you are flying all you really care about is that the engine runs
great, you have good communication, and the weather is good. I spent
days and days (maybe months or a year) planning my panel, paint, wiring
and interior. When you take off it is nice to have some of the features
but really you are looking outside and having a great time."
Thanks Scott.
But thanks to all that have posted.
Billy Kehmeier
kit #574
starting on tail cone
Chicago
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=69165#69165
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck(at)woh.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mags vs electronic ignition |
Chris,
Interesting! Taking a little different tack, will your panel be
all electric? I still think a vacuum backup is a good idea when the
smoke starts to escape from the boxes. As you say, there's no time to
troubleshoot when you can't see or breath. No mattter how much
electrical redundancy you have, your only choice is to shut it all down
when you suspect fire of electrical origin. This may be heresy to this
group. Luckily, you weren't in the air.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
Here is the other engine off the Aztec that I bought my engine from:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Lycoming-0-540-A1D5_W0QQitemZ110045101117
QQihZ001QQcategoryZ26439QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Good price for a core, even better price for a running engine. I
received my engine from this guy last week and it is exactly as he
described and appears to be in good shape. Mine had less time than this
one - you might want to just use this one as a core.
Jack Phillips
_________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <millstees(at)ameritech.net> |
Billy:
I am building a -10 in Naperville. I am using an Eggenfellner Subaru H-6
engine. Give me a call (630) 308-7476 cell
Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Billy
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: engines
Hello again,
I am the guy who started this subject about a week ago. Thank you all for
participating. I am still undecided at this point about the engine but your
comments have been helpful.
I trained as an A&P in the early 80s, worked for the airlines a while as a
mechanic (which does little for you O540 knowledge or generally sheet metal
as well). I currently fly for a small cargo airline using the 747-400s,
which gets a bit boring on 14 hour flights.
I did overhaul a cont. O300 and a lyc O235 back when I was learning to fly.
They seemed to run pretty much the same before and after overhaul.....Have
previously owned two older 172s one with the O300 and one with the O320. I
cant remember the O300 being that much smoother (could very well just be my
memory) Also a 150 a 152 a 210A and a 1976 182
Would like to connect with other 10 builders in the chicago area. I have a
tail kit and am pretty much done with section 9 and hope to start on section
10 before the end of the year.
One of the posted that struck a cord with me was from Scott Schmidt:
"Here is the truth with all of this, none of it really matters a lot.
They all seem like big decisions when you are planning and building but
when you are flying all you really care about is that the engine runs
great, you have good communication, and the weather is good. I spent
days and days (maybe months or a year) planning my panel, paint, wiring
and interior. When you take off it is nice to have some of the features
but really you are looking outside and having a great time."
Thanks Scott.
But thanks to all that have posted.
Billy Kehmeier
kit #574
starting on tail cone
Chicago
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=69165#69165
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "W. Curtis" <wcurtis(at)core.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Dual Lightspeed? |
>The phrase Optimum is a mis-leader in that it is the better of a poor
>trade off. PRISM will address this need for a changing advanced spark
>curve. One of the vulnerabilities of Mags is they are Primeval - Brain
>Dead simple and reliable at a single setting throughout a range of
>performance requirements.
John,
Don't tell me that you have been drinking the GAMI kool-aid. Since 1998 when I
first acquired the Cardinal, GAMI has been touting PRISM and bad mouthing every
other competitor product (FADEC, Lightspeed, LASAR, etc). Almost ten years
later, they still don't have a product. I'll wager that in 2010 PRISM will
still NOT be available. If and when it does become available it will NOT be cost
competitive and the performance gain will be marginal-if any.
As for their balanced injectors, they are a waste of money for Lycoming engines-even
if you plan to run LOP. The tolerances on the stock Lycoming injectors are
much better now. In 2004 I had a Factory Reman IO-360 installed and Im able
to run smooth significantly LOP with the stock injectors. It's always funny
to see those owners who insist on GAMI injectors for their Lycoming engines that
have no intention to run LOP. BIG waste of money. Those Advanced Pilot Seminars
are ensuring a loyal following of kool-aid drinkers and a constant revenue
stream to GAMI.
Personally, I plan to go with one Lightspeed and one mag. Would have preferred
a dual P-Mag setup if it was available.
William Curtis
http://nerv10.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Indran Chelvanayagam" <dc71(at)netspace.net.au> |
Any RV-10 builders (or their planes) going to the SAAA fly-in in Wagga next
weekend? We should get together for a beer or three!
I'd also love to see the turbocharged -10 that Ron mentioned a few days ago.
Indran
#40228
WOW Fri/Sat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Safety Wire questions |
I'm just wrapping up the tailcone attached (chapter 11) and have not
seen too many places where the instructions call out safety wire (I
think only on the elevator hinges). I expected to be safety wiring the
bolts that hold on the HS and VS. What about on "A" bolts that don't
have holes? Should I be safety wiring "everything" or only when the
manual says so?
Jeff
45-something
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David McNeill" <dlm46007(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety Wire questions |
Use the hardware called. In many cases it will be locknuts with nylon
inserts or high temp locknuts. The only place I will be substituting is
on the engine mount. Most callouts there are castellated nuts and cotter
pins, I will instead be using high temp metal locknuts (used on
certified airplanes).
----- Original Message -----
From: jdalton77
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 3:02 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Safety Wire questions
I'm just wrapping up the tailcone attached (chapter 11) and have not
seen too many places where the instructions call out safety wire (I
think only on the elevator hinges). I expected to be safety wiring the
bolts that hold on the HS and VS. What about on "A" bolts that don't
have holes? Should I be safety wiring "everything" or only when the
manual says so?
Jeff
45-something
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
If you see it, please post more information cause I think the pursuit is
worthy of group discussion. My interest is whether they used an
inter-cooler and how they dealt with the factory cowl.
John #40600
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Indran
Chelvanayagam
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 8:20 AM
Subject: RV10-List:
Any RV-10 builders (or their planes) going to the SAAA fly-in in Wagga
next weekend? We should get together for a beer or three!
I'd also love to see the turbocharged -10 that Ron mentioned a few days
ago.
Indran
#40228
WOW Fri/Sat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Dual Lightspeed? |
Well, you know what happens when you make universal statements. I know
lots of IO-360s that won't run LOP, some that will, with stock
injectors, my own included. However the TSIO540 used in the Mooney
TLS/Bravo flat will not run LOP on the vast majority of those engines.
It, by the way is a parallel valve 540, a distant cousin to what most
folks are putting in the RV10. With GAMIs and an otherwise healthy
engine, it will run LOP, up to certain power/TIT limits, but generally
will not generate 75% LOP within those temp limits.
While I can go to 70 LOP or so with my IO-360, I am certain it would
run smoother LOP with GAMIs than it does without. Sounds like you have
been drinking the factory Kool-Aid.
TCM offers the same flavor Kool-Aid, and a few of their tuned intake
engines are okay LOP but virtually all can have tighter mixture
spreads. What the OEMs seem to miss, is that it isn't having
identical injectors that is the goal, it is having all cylinders reach
peak EGT at as close to the same fuel flow as possible, and unless all
cylinders flow identical amounts of air through the power range, you
won't achieve that with identical flowing injectors.
On 10/21/06, W. Curtis wrote:
> >The phrase Optimum is a mis-leader in that it is the better of a poor
> >trade off. PRISM will address this need for a changing advanced spark
> >curve. One of the vulnerabilities of Mags is they are Primeval - Brain
> >Dead simple and reliable at a single setting throughout a range of
> >performance requirements.
>
> John,
>
> Don't tell me that you have been drinking the GAMI kool-aid. Since 1998
> when I first acquired the Cardinal, GAMI has been touting PRISM and bad
> mouthing every other competitor product (FADEC, Lightspeed, LASAR, etc).
> Almost ten years later, they still don't have a product. I'll wager that in
> 2010 PRISM will still NOT be available. If and when it does become available
> it will NOT be cost competitive and the performance gain will be marginal-if
> any.
>
> As for their balanced injectors, they are a waste of money for Lycoming
> engines-even if you plan to run LOP. The tolerances on the stock Lycoming
> injectors are much better now. In 2004 I had a Factory Reman IO-360
> installed and I'm able to run smooth significantly LOP with the stock
> injectors. It's always funny to see those owners who insist on GAMI
> injectors for their Lycoming engines that have no intention to run LOP. BIG
> waste of money. Those Advanced Pilot Seminars are ensuring a loyal following
> of kool-aid drinkers and a constant revenue stream to GAMI.
>
> Personally, I plan to go with one Lightspeed and one mag. Would have
> preferred a dual P-Mag setup if it was available.
> William Curtis
> http://nerv10.com/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Hein <n8vim(at)arrl.net> |
| Subject: | What Wire for Wiring? |
Hey Y'all!
What type of wire should I use for wiring? Teflon? Tefzel? Tin
coated copper? silver coated copper?
I looked at wiremasters.net, and it appears that for 14ga. Tefzel, the
length is 1,200ft. I'm quite sure I don't need THAT much, especially in
only one color. (What am I doing wrong?)
Also, does anyone have an initial "shopping list" of wire that you
bought to start off with? Would you mind sharing it?
-Jim 40384, deburring bottom wing skins
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Accidents in RVs |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Simon Bromily just posted an excellent clip today on the RVs in Aus site
from over on Yahoo. This is an excerpt from the Latest RV Builder's
Hotline (October 21st) that I encourage all of you to read, study and
begin meaningful discussion. That is the value of Matt's site isn't it.
As a Designated Pilot Examiner for 23 years and an Accident Safety
Specialist for 16 of those, this issue is real and is well reported. A
theory that Average Rich Guy can buy a Hot Rod kitbuilt or recent TC
certified aircraft then rapidly skew the statistical pool. The resultant
statistical skew lends merit on the need for intensive and repetitive,
tailored instruction from "Make and Model" qualified Instructors. To
ignore such a pursuit, can tilt insurance costs the direction of wiping
out a large percentage of the kit building community - before they are
finished.
The leading article is "A look at RV accident information" by Bob
Collins.
Thanks Simon, in my haste I figured it was stuff I could just gloss
over.
John Cox #40600
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | What Wire for Wiring? |
I ordered mine by foot from Stein.
http://www.steinair.com/
Rene'
40322
N423CF
Finish Kit and a lot more.......
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Hein
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 6:32 PM
Subject: RV10-List: What Wire for Wiring?
Hey Y'all!
What type of wire should I use for wiring? Teflon? Tefzel? Tin
coated copper? silver coated copper?
I looked at wiremasters.net, and it appears that for 14ga. Tefzel, the
length is 1,200ft. I'm quite sure I don't need THAT much, especially in
only one color. (What am I doing wrong?)
Also, does anyone have an initial "shopping list" of wire that you
bought to start off with? Would you mind sharing it?
-Jim 40384, deburring bottom wing skins
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | What Wire for Wiring? |
Hi James,
Stick with the standard M22759/16 Tefzel wire...don't bother with teflon,
silver plated, etc...or surplus stuff (you never know what you're getting).
Also, if you spend more than a few hours "hunting" for a deal, you've just
wasted enough time to buy what you want and what you need brand new.
Depending on what you're doing with the plane and panel, buy at least the
following initially:
200' AWG22
200' AWG18
150' AWG16
50' AWG20
50' AWG14
25' AWG12
25' AWG10
100' RG-400 Coax
a dozen male BNC's, a half dozen female BNC's, a couple hundred PIDG ring
terminals, and some heatshrink.
Now, depending on if you want colors or not you can split all that up. The
above wiring amounts could vary pretty significantly depending on if you're
wiring your own panel or not, whether you're going full boat on lighting,
radios, IFR/VFR, etc.. I wouldn't waste my time buying whole spools then
trying to sell the surplus. Heck, wire is relatively cheap, we're talking
about something that costs pennies per foot...you'll only spend a couple/few
hundred bucks of wire total. Why waste your time goofing
around.......figure out what you need, what colors you want and just buy it.
As someone who regularly buys wire in 10,000' - 20,000' spools and keeps
over a half million feet of wire "hanging around", I can tell you playing
with spools to save a few percent is a waste of time on an item like this,
for one airplane. With your Avionics or engine it's a different story
because you can save a lot of dough, but in the wiring it's such a cheap
item to begin with that it's not worth much effort to save a buck.
Just my 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James Hein
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: RV10-List: What Wire for Wiring?
Hey Y'all!
What type of wire should I use for wiring? Teflon? Tefzel? Tin
coated copper? silver coated copper?
I looked at wiremasters.net, and it appears that for 14ga. Tefzel, the
length is 1,200ft. I'm quite sure I don't need THAT much, especially in
only one color. (What am I doing wrong?)
Also, does anyone have an initial "shopping list" of wire that you
bought to start off with? Would you mind sharing it?
-Jim 40384, deburring bottom wing skins
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Link McGarity <wv4i(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What Wire for Wiring? |
Take a look at www.AeroElectric.com articles, etc... Huge library of
articles, how to's, schematics, reference info. Aircraft wiring....want
stranded wire of proper gauge for anticipated load(s) and length, and
properly breakered to protect the wire (yes, the wire,,,this will spur
discussion, I'm sure), with a non-toxic insulation,
i.e.teflon/zel/whatever (when hot or on fire)...beyond that, the
considerations and options go forth....
Link Mcgarity
RV10/#40622 elevator
RV6/N42GF/flying (all new instrument panel, and wiring thereto in 2004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Link McGarity <wv4i(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Accidents in RVs |
Was reading my AOPA email and wound up on link to NTSB summary of
accidents in Cirrus SR20/22. For comparison, I did a search of all RV
accidents in same time period. List was about the same length, and equal
distribution of injuries, i.e. none/minor/serious/fatal. Saw NO RV-10's,
yet. Only did cursory look at data, but food for thought. I hear that
Cirrus is now requiring time in type to turn the new owner loose? Or
would that be the insurance cos? RV-10 insurers?
I don't think RV's will get you in trouble as fast as a
Glasair/Lancair/other composite with higher wing loading, but they are
definitely not Cessnas/Pipers either, and demand respect. Need to really
become a student of aerodynamics, wing loading, wt & bal, etc., and be
receptive to learning, IMHO.
Link McGarity
#40622
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ddddsp1(at)juno.com" <ddddsp1(at)juno.com> |
Was curious how many of the RV10's that were up for sale had been sold a
nd what the selling price was. Anyone know? Some have been advertised
on here from John Stewart's, Jesse's, RV10 in Minnesota, to 325HP. Wha
t will the "Market VALUE" be on the RV10?
Dean
40449 Completing modification #188 of John Cox's 387. :)
________________________________________________________________________
Was curious how many of the RV10's that were up for sale had be
en sold and what the selling price was. Anyone know? S
ome have been advertised on here from John Stewart's, Jesse's, RV10 in M
innesota, to 325HP. What will the "Market VALUE" be on the RV10?&n
bsp;
Dean
40449 Completing modification #188 of John Cox's 387. :)<
BR>
______________________
__________________________________________________
Visit http://www.juno.com/value to sign up today!