RV10-Archive.digest.vol-km
April 21, 2015 - May 10, 2015
are automotive type, and there are 2 of them. Tons of proving time on the
fuel pumps as well. The Coils are similar (if not the same) as the one from
a Subaru Impreza. Again, hundreds of thousands of hours on the coils as well.
The spark plugs are iridium automotive plugs and are a fraction of the price
as an aircraft plug and out perform them as well. I feel perfectly safe with
the EFII system in my aircraft, and would recommend them to anyone who wants a
traditional aircraft engine with a modern fuel and ignition system.
Hope this helps!
Justin
On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> I assume you are aware that leaded fuel such as 100LL will destroy an oxygen
sensor in less than one tank of fuel?
> I seriously doubt that the EFII system and the dual everything required to ensure
it has power to work will save enough fuel to have a payback in any reasonable
time frame. Mixture management on conventional fuel injection with magnetos
is childs play once you get the system delivering equal fuel mixture to each
cylinder. While autos are using less gas and producing more power, they are
doing it with higher compression ratios, knock sensors and thousands of hours
of dyno time. Most of the incremental benefit comes from electronic ignition,
not electronic timed fuel injection. Feel free to experiment, but don't expect
to get equal power on half the gas, or half the workload, for equal investment.
>
> On 4/20/2015 9:55 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:
>> Since the fuel is metered directly at the injectors by the ECU, why do you have
to mess with the mixture knob? The EFII website says, "Automatic mixture
control (no mixture knob to fool with)", but you're saying that's not entirely
true? Is the issue that you're compensating for a lack of initial ECU programming
by altering the fuel pressure until the you get the programming dialed in?
Since the system has a MAP and IAT sensor, it seems like it should be able
to meter correctly without any input from the pilot. It doesn't look like the
EFII includes an oxygen sensor, though?
>>
>> Any idea if there are plans to fly this plane on automotive gasoline?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jesse Saint > wrote:
>>
>> I think you're kidding yourself if you think there is no mixture
>> to worry about. I spend more time on the mixture knob so far than
>> I do on the mixture control with a standard system. It's possible
>> that once you get things all tuned up the way you want them you
>> may not use it as much, but I really don't use it that much on a
>> standard system either. I lean a little as I climb, then I set
>> power, rpm and fuel flow for cruise.
>>
>> I would imagine if you are burnin 12gph, you are probably
>> returning at least that much to the tank, if not more. I wouldn't
>> want to have to mess with picking a return tank separate from a
>> feed tank. There are warnings when your fuel in a tank gets low,
>> but I don't know of a warning saying your tank is getting too
>> full. If you get busy or get bored and aren't managing fuel with a
>> normal system, you will get something yelling at you saying you're
>> getting into the red on the draw tank, but it won't happen if you
>> start to pump it overboard through the return tank vent.
>>
>> I agree that electric ignition is tried and true in cars, but so
>> far there are a total of 10 fleet hours in the RV-10 with a full
>> EFII system and thousands and thousands with mags and standard
>> fuel injection. Far from a no-brainier in my book unless you are
>> talking the other way around.
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> 352-427-0285
>> jesse(at)saintaviation.com
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Berck E. Nash > > wrote:
>>
>>> Carl- thanks so much for the picture. I'll plan on the same
>>> location. As for the cost: We haven't purchased anything yet,
>>> and probably won't until we source an engine. Hoping available
>>> systems will only get cheaper, but cursory research indicates
>>> it'll cost not much more than more conventional FI and ignition
>>> setups.
>>>
>>> Jesse- Thanks for the heads up. Glad to hear that one is flying
>>> already, and I hope you'll keep us updated of any gotchas. After
>>> seeing that an EFII system is available, I can't imagine not
>>> using it. I'm aware of the need for a fully redundant electrical
>>> system and dual ECU's. I was already planning on dual electronic
>>> ignition and the dual alternators that necessitates, so
>>> electronic fuel injection only makes sense to me. This is, I
>>> think, the beauty of building an experimental-- the ability to
>>> use "modern" (30-year-old tried-and-tested) technology in an
>>> airplane, instead of being forced to rely on a fuel delivery
>>> system from the 1950's.
>>>
>>> Any RV-10 specific EFII links, information, vendor tips, etc,
>>> would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> As for the "complexity" of a fuel return tank selection, it seems
>>> a bit silly to me that choosing a return tank is considered
>>> "overly complex." It's the difference of switching two valves
>>> instead of one when you switch tanks in normal operations. Sure,
>>> it's more complex than a single knob, but I'm used to much more
>>> complicated fuel systems many of which require deliberate
>>> knowledge of the fuel return tank. I'm not really concerned
>>> about it either way. The only reason to want to transfer fuel
>>> would be a leak, and in most situations, getting on the ground
>>> quickly makes a lot more sense than moving fuel around. Since I
>>> won't have to worry about the insane complexity of a mixture
>>> control, I can use those saved neurons to handle the fuel return
>>> tank if I wind up with two valves.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Carl Froehlich
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Berck,
>>>
>>> I added a 1/4" purge line return to the left tank when
>>> building in case I
>>> ended up with an AFP injection system (photo attached). This
>>> is the same
>>> location I used the RV-8A which had AFP injection.
>>>
>>> Adding a return line is straight forward and if you get the
>>> fitting in about
>>> the same area as the vent line connection you should not have
>>> an issue. I'd
>>> keep it high (like my photo) so that it is away from the fuel
>>> pick up -
>>> should help with pulling cooler fuel into the engine as
>>> compared to the
>>> hotter return fuel.
>>>
>>> Just curious - how much did this EFII system cost?
>>>
>>> Carl
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>>
>>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>> ] On Behalf Of
>>> Berck E. Nash
>>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 12:44 AM
>>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Return Line Location?
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> I'm leaning toward a duplex valve, but I'm also considering
>>> two fuel valves,
>>> one for the source and one for the return. This isn't that
>>> different than
>>> jets I've flown, and I think I can handle the "complexity".
It's cheaper
>>> and it gives the advantage of being able to transfer fuel,
>>> which might come
>>> in handy. Regardless, none of the answers so far tell me
>>> where to tap the
>>> return line:)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> D============================================
>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> D============================================
>>> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>>> D============================================
>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> D============================================
>>>
>>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
O2 sensors do not burn out, with or without lead. They get coated/fouled
by the lead which destroys their sensitivity very quickly. The period to
sensor failure is typically less than a dozen hours when exposed to
leaded fuel. That is my experience over 30 yrs of working on auto
emission control systems.
The total improvement available with optimizing mixture and spark
control is on the order of 5-10 percent. Whether that is significant or
not is your call. I see claims for more, without significant data to
back them up.
An RSA5 system and magnetos can be overhauled for less than 1/2 what
this system costs. But then you have to add in the cost of adding dual
alternators, dual buss, dual batteries and the cost of maintaining those
extras so as to ensure your risk of failure is as near nil as possible.
You are on the wrong track talking air to fuel ratios in an aircraft
engine. You have 6 different air paths to cylinders. Those intake tubes
are only crudely "tuned" and are not equal length. You have six
different cylinders, each with their own fuel to air ratio. An oxygen
sensor is only going to measure an average of 3 cylinders, unless you
somehow tie together the exhaust from all six with a non-stock exhaust
system. Then you would be averaging six into one, which tells you
nothing about how the individual cylinders are doing. EGT is very good
at measuring mixture in relation to the other cylinders. If a system
could ensure that all six cylinders achieved peak EGT within 0.2 gal
fuel flow of each other, then you would have something. It is the
balancing of the mixtures that safely allows operating lean of peak, so
that each cylinder is producing the same power. It is the difference in
power that causes roughness, not the old wive's tale of "lean misfire".
There is no question that it is safer to run an engine lean of peak EGT
than the mixture you are suggesting. Running LOP let the airlines extend
the TBO on their R3350 engines to more than triple the original TBO.
Valve distress comes from operating too rich and too hot, in the area of
30-80 ROP, not from running lean of peak.
It has taken the auto industry 50 yrs to develop very good mixture and
spark control. It also required unleaded fuel. That was with tens of
thousands of dyno hours and huge investment in engineering and computer
development to map optimal spark/mixture combinations for each load. To
think you are going to patch together some of that technology and
achieve the same thing in an aircraft engine running leaded fuel with
minimal R&D is a big gamble. Same as there are a few successful auto
engines running in aircraft, but many more conversions that have not
worked. That this system apparently needs some mapping of mixture
indicates that it is not fully developed.
On 4/20/2015 11:56 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
>
> The wide band O2 sensors will eventually burn out due to lead fowling. They are
pricey, and it does not happen in less than one tank of 100LL. There are many
guys that have used them for tuning and removed them when they are done with
them. Not a good idea to keep them in as they will eventually burn out completely.
If you plan on changing your fuel map, I would HIGHLY suggest using a
wide band sensor and a display to ensure your AFR (air fuel ratio) is not getting
to lean. The stoichiometric ratio for a natural aspirated engine is 14.7:1
It is safer in our aircraft engines to run them at 13.7:1 and thats what the
EFII systems stock fuel map is programed to provide. Another indicator of
the AFR is EGT, but other things can affect EGT, so the safe bet while tuning
is to use a wide band O2 sensor and an AFR gauge to display the correct number
to ensure you dont get too lean.
>
> The EFII system for me, was a cost benefit to overhauling what I currently had.
An RSA5 fuel injection overhaul, new fuel pump, new mags, wires, plugs etc
would have been at or above the cost of acquisition of the EFiI system. I have
heard nothing but good from this system and Robert Paisley from ProTec Performance
has been nothing short of a rockstar with his customer service. I would
agree that more benefit comes from the EI than the fuel injection, but by modulating
the injectors, they are seeing gains on the dyno with the Electronic
Fuel Injection over the mechanical injection. Also of note, the Lycoming hot
start issue disappears with the EFII fuel injection. Mixture management is simple
with the EFII system due to the programed fuel map they have in the ECUs.
It reads the Manifold pressure, RPM, Throttle position sensor, and comes up
with the fuel demand for the engine regardless of altitude. There is NO MAF
sensor in this system. It uses a similar sensor in !
> the throttle body. If you wish to trim fuel to change the EGTs, you can do
so with the mixture rheostat, or you can do it by reprograming the ECUs fuel
mapping. Takes some programing knowledge and the software, but its not hard to
do. Robert Paisley and or SDS can help with this as well. There is significant
fuel savings with this system, but as Kelly stated, it is not half the fuel.
>
> Robert has his EFII system on numerous aircraft that race in the Reno air races,
as well as many many happy customers flying the complete system. The ECUs
are SDS ECUs and have hundreds of thousands of hours tested on them. The fuel
pumps are automotive type, and there are 2 of them. Tons of proving time on the
fuel pumps as well. The Coils are similar (if not the same) as the one from
a Subaru Impreza. Again, hundreds of thousands of hours on the coils as well.
The spark plugs are iridium automotive plugs and are a fraction of the price
as an aircraft plug and out perform them as well. I feel perfectly safe with
the EFII system in my aircraft, and would recommend them to anyone who wants
a traditional aircraft engine with a modern fuel and ignition system.
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Justin
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>> I assume you are aware that leaded fuel such as 100LL will destroy an oxygen
sensor in less than one tank of fuel?
>> I seriously doubt that the EFII system and the dual everything required to ensure
it has power to work will save enough fuel to have a payback in any reasonable
time frame. Mixture management on conventional fuel injection with magnetos
is childs play once you get the system delivering equal fuel mixture to each
cylinder. While autos are using less gas and producing more power, they are
doing it with higher compression ratios, knock sensors and thousands of hours
of dyno time. Most of the incremental benefit comes from electronic ignition,
not electronic timed fuel injection. Feel free to experiment, but don't expect
to get equal power on half the gas, or half the workload, for equal investment.
>>
>> On 4/20/2015 9:55 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:
>>> Since the fuel is metered directly at the injectors by the ECU, why do you
have to mess with the mixture knob? The EFII website says, "Automatic mixture
control (no mixture knob to fool with)", but you're saying that's not entirely
true? Is the issue that you're compensating for a lack of initial ECU programming
by altering the fuel pressure until the you get the programming dialed
in? Since the system has a MAP and IAT sensor, it seems like it should be able
to meter correctly without any input from the pilot. It doesn't look like
the EFII includes an oxygen sensor, though?
>>>
>>> Any idea if there are plans to fly this plane on automotive gasoline?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jesse Saint > wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you're kidding yourself if you think there is no mixture
>>> to worry about. I spend more time on the mixture knob so far than
>>> I do on the mixture control with a standard system. It's possible
>>> that once you get things all tuned up the way you want them you
>>> may not use it as much, but I really don't use it that much on a
>>> standard system either. I lean a little as I climb, then I set
>>> power, rpm and fuel flow for cruise.
>>>
>>> I would imagine if you are burnin 12gph, you are probably
>>> returning at least that much to the tank, if not more. I wouldn't
>>> want to have to mess with picking a return tank separate from a
>>> feed tank. There are warnings when your fuel in a tank gets low,
>>> but I don't know of a warning saying your tank is getting too
>>> full. If you get busy or get bored and aren't managing fuel with a
>>> normal system, you will get something yelling at you saying you're
>>> getting into the red on the draw tank, but it won't happen if you
>>> start to pump it overboard through the return tank vent.
>>>
>>> I agree that electric ignition is tried and true in cars, but so
>>> far there are a total of 10 fleet hours in the RV-10 with a full
>>> EFII system and thousands and thousands with mags and standard
>>> fuel injection. Far from a no-brainier in my book unless you are
>>> talking the other way around.
>>>
>>> Jesse Saint
>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>> 352-427-0285
>>> jesse(at)saintaviation.com
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Berck E. Nash >> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Carl- thanks so much for the picture. I'll plan on the same
>>>> location. As for the cost: We haven't purchased anything yet,
>>>> and probably won't until we source an engine. Hoping available
>>>> systems will only get cheaper, but cursory research indicates
>>>> it'll cost not much more than more conventional FI and ignition
>>>> setups.
>>>>
>>>> Jesse- Thanks for the heads up. Glad to hear that one is flying
>>>> already, and I hope you'll keep us updated of any gotchas. After
>>>> seeing that an EFII system is available, I can't imagine not
>>>> using it. I'm aware of the need for a fully redundant electrical
>>>> system and dual ECU's. I was already planning on dual electronic
>>>> ignition and the dual alternators that necessitates, so
>>>> electronic fuel injection only makes sense to me. This is, I
>>>> think, the beauty of building an experimental-- the ability to
>>>> use "modern" (30-year-old tried-and-tested) technology in an
>>>> airplane, instead of being forced to rely on a fuel delivery
>>>> system from the 1950's.
>>>>
>>>> Any RV-10 specific EFII links, information, vendor tips, etc,
>>>> would be greatly appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> As for the "complexity" of a fuel return tank selection, it seems
>>>> a bit silly to me that choosing a return tank is considered
>>>> "overly complex." It's the difference of switching two valves
>>>> instead of one when you switch tanks in normal operations. Sure,
>>>> it's more complex than a single knob, but I'm used to much more
>>>> complicated fuel systems many of which require deliberate
>>>> knowledge of the fuel return tank. I'm not really concerned
>>>> about it either way. The only reason to want to transfer fuel
>>>> would be a leak, and in most situations, getting on the ground
>>>> quickly makes a lot more sense than moving fuel around. Since I
>>>> won't have to worry about the insane complexity of a mixture
>>>> control, I can use those saved neurons to handle the fuel return
>>>> tank if I wind up with two valves.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Carl Froehlich
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Berck,
>>>>
>>>> I added a 1/4" purge line return to the left tank when
>>>> building in case I
>>>> ended up with an AFP injection system (photo attached). This
>>>> is the same
>>>> location I used the RV-8A which had AFP injection.
>>>>
>>>> Adding a return line is straight forward and if you get the
>>>> fitting in about
>>>> the same area as the vent line connection you should not have
>>>> an issue. I'd
>>>> keep it high (like my photo) so that it is away from the fuel
>>>> pick up -
>>>> should help with pulling cooler fuel into the engine as
>>>> compared to the
>>>> hotter return fuel.
>>>>
>>>> Just curious - how much did this EFII system cost?
>>>>
>>>> Carl
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>>>
>>>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>>> ] On Behalf Of
>>>> Berck E. Nash
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 12:44 AM
>>>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>>>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Return Line Location?
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I'm leaning toward a duplex valve, but I'm also considering
>>>> two fuel valves,
>>>> one for the source and one for the return. This isn't that
>>>> different than
>>>> jets I've flown, and I think I can handle the "complexity".
It's cheaper
>>>> and it gives the advantage of being able to transfer fuel,
>>>> which might come
>>>> in handy. Regardless, none of the answers so far tell me
>>>> where to tap the
>>>> return line:)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> D============================================
>>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> D============================================
>>>> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>>>> D============================================
>>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> D============================================
>>>>
>>>> *
>>> *
>>>
>>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
You can still run LOP with the EFII system. It just does not do it automatically.
There is a rheostat that precisely adjusts pulse width. You just watch your
egts like you usually would.
> On Apr 21, 2015, at 06:37, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> O2 sensors do not burn out, with or without lead. They get coated/fouled by the
lead which destroys their sensitivity very quickly. The period to sensor failure
is typically less than a dozen hours when exposed to leaded fuel. That is
my experience over 30 yrs of working on auto emission control systems.
> The total improvement available with optimizing mixture and spark control is
on the order of 5-10 percent. Whether that is significant or not is your call.
I see claims for more, without significant data to back them up.
> An RSA5 system and magnetos can be overhauled for less than 1/2 what this system
costs. But then you have to add in the cost of adding dual alternators, dual
buss, dual batteries and the cost of maintaining those extras so as to ensure
your risk of failure is as near nil as possible.
> You are on the wrong track talking air to fuel ratios in an aircraft engine.
You have 6 different air paths to cylinders. Those intake tubes are only crudely
"tuned" and are not equal length. You have six different cylinders, each with
their own fuel to air ratio. An oxygen sensor is only going to measure an average
of 3 cylinders, unless you somehow tie together the exhaust from all six
with a non-stock exhaust system. Then you would be averaging six into one, which
tells you nothing about how the individual cylinders are doing. EGT is very
good at measuring mixture in relation to the other cylinders. If a system could
ensure that all six cylinders achieved peak EGT within 0.2 gal fuel flow
of each other, then you would have something. It is the balancing of the mixtures
that safely allows operating lean of peak, so that each cylinder is producing
the same power. It is the difference in power that causes roughness, not
the old wive's tale of "lean misfire". There is no question that it is safer
to run an engine lean of peak EGT than the mixture you are suggesting. Running
LOP let the airlines extend the TBO on their R3350 engines to more than triple
the original TBO. Valve distress comes from operating too rich and too hot,
in the area of 30-80 ROP, not from running lean of peak.
> It has taken the auto industry 50 yrs to develop very good mixture and spark
control. It also required unleaded fuel. That was with tens of thousands of dyno
hours and huge investment in engineering and computer development to map optimal
spark/mixture combinations for each load. To think you are going to patch
together some of that technology and achieve the same thing in an aircraft engine
running leaded fuel with minimal R&D is a big gamble. Same as there are
a few successful auto engines running in aircraft, but many more conversions that
have not worked. That this system apparently needs some mapping of mixture
indicates that it is not fully developed.
>
>> On 4/20/2015 11:56 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
>>
>> The wide band O2 sensors will eventually burn out due to lead fowling. They
are pricey, and it does not happen in less than one tank of 100LL. There are
many guys that have used them for tuning and removed them when they are done with
them. Not a good idea to keep them in as they will eventually burn out completely.
If you plan on changing your fuel map, I would HIGHLY suggest using
a wide band sensor and a display to ensure your AFR (air fuel ratio) is not getting
to lean. The stoichiometric ratio for a natural aspirated engine is 14.7:1
It is safer in our aircraft engines to run them at 13.7:1 and thats what
the EFII systems stock fuel map is programed to provide. Another indicator of
the AFR is EGT, but other things can affect EGT, so the safe bet while tuning
is to use a wide band O2 sensor and an AFR gauge to display the correct number
to ensure you dont get too lean.
>> The EFII system for me, was a cost benefit to overhauling what I currently
had. An RSA5 fuel injection overhaul, new fuel pump, new mags, wires, plugs etc
would have been at or above the cost of acquisition of the EFiI system. I
have heard nothing but good from this system and Robert Paisley from ProTec Performance
has been nothing short of a rockstar with his customer service. I would
agree that more benefit comes from the EI than the fuel injection, but by
modulating the injectors, they are seeing gains on the dyno with the Electronic
Fuel Injection over the mechanical injection. Also of note, the Lycoming hot
start issue disappears with the EFII fuel injection. Mixture management is
simple with the EFII system due to the programed fuel map they have in the ECUs.
It reads the Manifold pressure, RPM, Throttle position sensor, and comes
up with the fuel demand for the engine regardless of altitude. There is NO MAF
sensor in this system. It uses a similar sensor i!
> n !
>> the throttle body. If you wish to trim fuel to change the EGTs, you can do
so with the mixture rheostat, or you can do it by reprograming the ECUs fuel
mapping. Takes some programing knowledge and the software, but its not hard to
do. Robert Paisley and or SDS can help with this as well. There is significant
fuel savings with this system, but as Kelly stated, it is not half the fuel.
>>
>> Robert has his EFII system on numerous aircraft that race in the Reno air races,
as well as many many happy customers flying the complete system. The ECUs
are SDS ECUs and have hundreds of thousands of hours tested on them. The fuel
pumps are automotive type, and there are 2 of them. Tons of proving time on
the fuel pumps as well. The Coils are similar (if not the same) as the one from
a Subaru Impreza. Again, hundreds of thousands of hours on the coils as well.
The spark plugs are iridium automotive plugs and are a fraction of the price
as an aircraft plug and out perform them as well. I feel perfectly safe with
the EFII system in my aircraft, and would recommend them to anyone who wants
a traditional aircraft engine with a modern fuel and ignition system.
>>
>> Hope this helps!
>>
>> Justin
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>>
>>> I assume you are aware that leaded fuel such as 100LL will destroy an oxygen
sensor in less than one tank of fuel?
>>> I seriously doubt that the EFII system and the dual everything required to
ensure it has power to work will save enough fuel to have a payback in any reasonable
time frame. Mixture management on conventional fuel injection with magnetos
is childs play once you get the system delivering equal fuel mixture to
each cylinder. While autos are using less gas and producing more power, they are
doing it with higher compression ratios, knock sensors and thousands of hours
of dyno time. Most of the incremental benefit comes from electronic ignition,
not electronic timed fuel injection. Feel free to experiment, but don't expect
to get equal power on half the gas, or half the workload, for equal investment.
>>>
>>>> On 4/20/2015 9:55 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:
>>>> Since the fuel is metered directly at the injectors by the ECU, why do you
have to mess with the mixture knob? The EFII website says, "Automatic mixture
control (no mixture knob to fool with)", but you're saying that's not entirely
true? Is the issue that you're compensating for a lack of initial ECU programming
by altering the fuel pressure until the you get the programming dialed
in? Since the system has a MAP and IAT sensor, it seems like it should be able
to meter correctly without any input from the pilot. It doesn't look like
the EFII includes an oxygen sensor, though?
>>>>
>>>> Any idea if there are plans to fly this plane on automotive gasoline?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jesse Saint > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think you're kidding yourself if you think there is no mixture
>>>> to worry about. I spend more time on the mixture knob so far than
>>>> I do on the mixture control with a standard system. It's possible
>>>> that once you get things all tuned up the way you want them you
>>>> may not use it as much, but I really don't use it that much on a
>>>> standard system either. I lean a little as I climb, then I set
>>>> power, rpm and fuel flow for cruise.
>>>>
>>>> I would imagine if you are burnin 12gph, you are probably
>>>> returning at least that much to the tank, if not more. I wouldn't
>>>> want to have to mess with picking a return tank separate from a
>>>> feed tank. There are warnings when your fuel in a tank gets low,
>>>> but I don't know of a warning saying your tank is getting too
>>>> full. If you get busy or get bored and aren't managing fuel with a
>>>> normal system, you will get something yelling at you saying you're
>>>> getting into the red on the draw tank, but it won't happen if you
>>>> start to pump it overboard through the return tank vent.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that electric ignition is tried and true in cars, but so
>>>> far there are a total of 10 fleet hours in the RV-10 with a full
>>>> EFII system and thousands and thousands with mags and standard
>>>> fuel injection. Far from a no-brainier in my book unless you are
>>>> talking the other way around.
>>>>
>>>> Jesse Saint
>>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>>> 352-427-0285
>>>> jesse(at)saintaviation.com
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Berck E. Nash >>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Carl- thanks so much for the picture. I'll plan on the same
>>>>> location. As for the cost: We haven't purchased anything yet,
>>>>> and probably won't until we source an engine. Hoping available
>>>>> systems will only get cheaper, but cursory research indicates
>>>>> it'll cost not much more than more conventional FI and ignition
>>>>> setups.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesse- Thanks for the heads up. Glad to hear that one is flying
>>>>> already, and I hope you'll keep us updated of any gotchas. After
>>>>> seeing that an EFII system is available, I can't imagine not
>>>>> using it. I'm aware of the need for a fully redundant electrical
>>>>> system and dual ECU's. I was already planning on dual electronic
>>>>> ignition and the dual alternators that necessitates, so
>>>>> electronic fuel injection only makes sense to me. This is, I
>>>>> think, the beauty of building an experimental-- the ability to
>>>>> use "modern" (30-year-old tried-and-tested) technology in an
>>>>> airplane, instead of being forced to rely on a fuel delivery
>>>>> system from the 1950's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any RV-10 specific EFII links, information, vendor tips, etc,
>>>>> would be greatly appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the "complexity" of a fuel return tank selection, it seems
>>>>> a bit silly to me that choosing a return tank is considered
>>>>> "overly complex." It's the difference of switching two valves
>>>>> instead of one when you switch tanks in normal operations. Sure,
>>>>> it's more complex than a single knob, but I'm used to much more
>>>>> complicated fuel systems many of which require deliberate
>>>>> knowledge of the fuel return tank. I'm not really concerned
>>>>> about it either way. The only reason to want to transfer fuel
>>>>> would be a leak, and in most situations, getting on the ground
>>>>> quickly makes a lot more sense than moving fuel around. Since I
>>>>> won't have to worry about the insane complexity of a mixture
>>>>> control, I can use those saved neurons to handle the fuel return
>>>>> tank if I wind up with two valves.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Carl Froehlich
>>>>> >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Berck,
>>>>>
>>>>> I added a 1/4" purge line return to the left tank when
>>>>> building in case I
>>>>> ended up with an AFP injection system (photo attached). This
>>>>> is the same
>>>>> location I used the RV-8A which had AFP injection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding a return line is straight forward and if you get the
>>>>> fitting in about
>>>>> the same area as the vent line connection you should not have
>>>>> an issue. I'd
>>>>> keep it high (like my photo) so that it is away from the fuel
>>>>> pick up -
>>>>> should help with pulling cooler fuel into the engine as
>>>>> compared to the
>>>>> hotter return fuel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just curious - how much did this EFII system cost?
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>>>>
>>>>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>>>> ] On Behalf Of
>>>>> Berck E. Nash
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 12:44 AM
>>>>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Return Line Location?
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm leaning toward a duplex valve, but I'm also considering
>>>>> two fuel valves,
>>>>> one for the source and one for the return. This isn't that
>>>>> different than
>>>>> jets I've flown, and I think I can handle the "complexity".
It's cheaper
>>>>> and it gives the advantage of being able to transfer fuel,
>>>>> which might come
>>>>> in handy. Regardless, none of the answers so far tell me
>>>>> where to tap the
>>>>> return line:)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>> D============================================
>>>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>>> D============================================
>>>>> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>>>>> D============================================
>>>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>> D============================================
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
I am building a -10 and WILL be using the complete EFII system.
That being said, I find it somewhat humorous how this thread is developing.
On one hand you have the "that's the way we have always done it" crowd.
On the other hand, there are the guys who want to bring our sport/hobby/obsession
into the 21st century.
There will NEVER be agreement between the two sides but consider this:
If no one ever questioned Mr. Ford, we would all be driving black cars. If no
one ever question the points and condenser system, we would not have electronic
ignition. How about carbs versus FI? Steam gauges versus EFIS?
It goes on and on. There are those that want to progress forward and there are
those who are more comfortable with the ancient technology of the last century.
It is what is great about experimental aircraft...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441110#441110
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
There are always better ways to do anything and experimenting is encouraged.
I'm forced however to apply the "value" decision on my projects as my
pockets are not at all that deep.
At some point EFII like systems will be widely adopted - and early adopters
will provide the environment to refine, standardize and most importantly
drive the scale needed to get the price down so us working slobs can afford
it. In the meantime, and in view of the small (if any) incremental engine
efficiency gain of the EFII compared to a properly tuned standard fuel
injection system with electronic ignition, I will be sitting on the sideline
watching with interest on the progress to bring EFII systems to the masses.
I can provide you a power distribution design to support your EFII install
that is flying on four RVs for over a decade. Perhaps this will give you a
jump start on your EFII install. Contact me off list if interested.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rocketman1988
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:12 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?
I am building a -10 and WILL be using the complete EFII system.
That being said, I find it somewhat humorous how this thread is developing.
On one hand you have the "that's the way we have always done it" crowd.
On the other hand, there are the guys who want to bring our
sport/hobby/obsession into the 21st century.
There will NEVER be agreement between the two sides but consider this:
If no one ever questioned Mr. Ford, we would all be driving black cars. If
no one ever question the points and condenser system, we would not have
electronic ignition. How about carbs versus FI? Steam gauges versus EFIS?
It goes on and on. There are those that want to progress forward and there
are those who are more comfortable with the ancient technology of the last
century.
It is what is great about experimental aircraft...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441110#441110
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |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________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.
It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has their own opinion
and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.
While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always done it" crowd,
I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made to ancient tractor
engines that we are using...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
| From: | "Berck E. Nash" <flyboy(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for chiming in, Rocketman. Unlike a lot of you, I'm new to this
whole homebuilt thing, but I take the the concept of "experimental"
seriously. I think that there's a strong tendency to simply want to put an
airplane together, and while that's a valid option these days, it doesn't
have to be limited to that. I'm just now struggling with diving into the
actual experimental aspects of building a kit. Up until now, everything
I've done has been pretty much verbatim following the (mostly) excellent
instructions. It's nice to be able to make progress on building an
airplane without thinking about it, but a huge part of the appeal of a
homebuilt is the ability to make my own decisions about how I think an
aircraft should be equipped. And now, as I'm making progress on the wings
I'm having to make some real decisions, and I keep trying to remind myself
that's a good thing. It drives me crazy that piston aircraft engines are
stuck with 1950's technology when so much better is available, and I hope
that by being a (somewhat) early adopter of EFI that I can help turn the
tide toward affordable, modern engine management. Buying and installing a
system from EFII is only a minor contribution, but the more of us there are
moving forward, the faster we'll get there. I wasn't around when the EAB
community started adopting things like glass panel displays, but I'm sure
there were plenty of naysayers then, too. Still, I welcome all the
comments: it's a very valid point that there's currently only one RV-10
that we know about with an EFII system, but it's a risk I'm willing to
take. At some point there were no RV-10s flying at all. I love not having
to be first; I'm glad that there were 1,534 kits sold before mine, but I'm
not afraid of building something that's actually experimental. After all,
I'm going to have to paint that word on the plane. I love that this
community exists and that, so far, everything I want to do has been done in
some form or fashion by someone else. Keep telling me I'm insane for not
priming or planning on an EFII system. Those are valid opinions, and I
like hearing them. Thanks for being out there--this is one of the first
times I've actually had to ask questions, because almost every question
I've had can be answered by a web search.
Berck
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Rocketman1988
wrote:
>
> Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.
>
> It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has their
> own opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.
>
> While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always done
> it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made to
> ancient tractor engines that we are using...
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
You are touching on a few things I have been thinking about. Recognizing yo
ur newness to the experimental side of aviation is very important.
When I started my RV-10 seven years ago, I too was new to the experimental s
ide. At the time my exposure/experience was very limited. Sure, I had some
knowledge of how things work, how they should work if I modify things, and h
ow they should react. To simply put it, I had knowledge but very little r
eal world experience; my window of real-world exposure was very narrow.
At that point, I hadn't had friends who had accidents. I hadn't lost any fr
iends. As a result my eyes were wide open because I didn't know what I did
n't know.
As I sit here at lunch typing this message on my iPhone, I have 7 years of h
istory behind me.
7 years ago my personal impact record was clean and in looking in the rear v
iew mirror I now have 2 friends who managed to dead stick their airplane aft
er engine failure. One of them has gone through 7 engines in his velocity (
costing him more than a Lycoming) and he is now putting a Lycoming in it aft
er finally giving up.
But those are the good stories because today I have 4 (other) friends who ar
e dead from 3 accidents. All of them were in alternative engine aircraft.
All of them were the direct result of the engine.
Today I now have some experience to go along with that knowledge I had when I
started. My window of exposure to experimental aviation is now wider and i
s balanced by real experience.
I'm tired of losing friends. I'm tired of seeing their wives and kids griev
e. I'm tired of all of it. It sucks.
If there's one good thing about a 7-8 year build, it's that you're given an o
pportunity to get exposure to some stuff you otherwise wouldn't.
Phil
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:
>
> Thanks for chiming in, Rocketman. Unlike a lot of you, I'm new to this wh
ole homebuilt thing, but I take the the concept of "experimental" seriously.
I think that there's a strong tendency to simply want to put an airplane t
ogether, and while that's a valid option these days, it doesn't have to be l
imited to that. I'm just now struggling with diving into the actual experim
ental aspects of building a kit. Up until now, everything I've done has been
pretty much verbatim following the (mostly) excellent instructions. It's n
ice to be able to make progress on building an airplane without thinking abo
ut it, but a huge part of the appeal of a homebuilt is the ability to make m
y own decisions about how I think an aircraft should be equipped. And now, a
s I'm making progress on the wings I'm having to make some real decisions, a
nd I keep trying to remind myself that's a good thing. It drives me crazy t
hat piston aircraft engines are stuck with 1950's technology when so much be
tter is available, and I hope that by being a (somewhat) early adopter of EFI
that I can help turn the tide toward affordable, modern engine management.
Buying and installing a system from EFII is only a minor contribution, but t
he more of us there are moving forward, the faster we'll get there. I wasn'
t around when the EAB community started adopting things like glass panel dis
plays, but I'm sure there were plenty of naysayers then, too. Still, I welc
ome all the comments: it's a very valid point that there's currently only on
e RV-10 that we know about with an EFII system, but it's a risk I'm willing t
o take. At some point there were no RV-10s flying at all. I love not havin
g to be first; I'm glad that there were 1,534 kits sold before mine, but I'm
not afraid of building something that's actually experimental. After all, I
'm going to have to paint that word on the plane. I love that this community
exists and that, so far, everything I want to do has been done in some form
or fashion by someone else. Keep telling me I'm insane for not priming or p
lanning on an EFII system. Those are valid opinions, and I like hearing the
m. Thanks for being out there--this is one of the first times I've actually
had to ask questions, because almost every question I've had can be answere
d by a web search.
>
> Berck
>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Rocketman1988 wr
ote:
>>
>> Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.
>>
>> It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has their o
wn opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.
>>
>> While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always done i
t" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made to ancient
tractor engines that we are using...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
I think you are misinterpreting some of the comments. It is not that is
how we have always done it. Yes, the IO540 has been around since the
mid-sixties. However, it was really advanced for its time. Cars were
running 4 barrel carburetors with points controlled distributors back
then. No one has shown better fuel efficiency on avgas than the IO-540
will do lean of peak, beyond what an electronic ignition does to improve
control of spark advance. That gives you 5% plus or minus a little. By
1970 there was the dual turbo charged 350+ hpTIO-540 on Chieftains and
the TIO541 on Dukes. If there is efficiency to be added by timed fuel
injection, I have not seen the data. There is efficiency available with
direct injection to the cylinders with very high fuel pressures, but
that isn't what is being discussed. Whether the fuel is delivered when
the valves are open or continuous is talking about around a 50th of a
second. To operate that unquantified benefit, you have the extra cost of
the unit plus another thousand or so in a fully redundant electrical system.
Since, as you say you still have a mixture control, you probably haven't
gained much over the engines that had altitude compensating fuel pumps
to adjust the mixture for altitude. Most of what is being considered
"new" was invented 40-50 years ago and used on race cars. Only the
volume of mass production for cars has changed the costs somewhat. Many
cars have had continuous fuel injection for a very long time. It took
the combination of unleaded fuel, closed loop feedback and higher
compression with knock sensors to make much improvement. There are
factors for cars like cold and hot start emissions and part throttle
economy that drive a lot of the choices.
The main point is that yes you can make all the experimental choices you
want, but there are costs, and not much has been proven effective and
durable at this point.
On 4/22/2015 8:07 AM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>
> Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.
>
> It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has their own opinion
and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.
>
> While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always done it"
crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made to ancient tractor
engines that we are using...
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
To me it gets hard to accept that many of these new engine technologies
make our engines "better" in any real way. Maybe things like roller
lifters are an improvement, but what I see is that most of the new
things come with caveats.
When you look at how the engines need to operate, there are some
things that really make it hard to deviate from the old designs
of the past.
I'll give some examples:
1) Piston size/clearance. First, we operate in a much broader temp
range than any cars do, over the course of any given hour.
We go from very hot to very cold (at altitude), and vice versa.
To do this, requires a significant amount of piston gap to compensate
for the expansion of materials. Our engines are looser than car
engines, but for good reason. You can eliminate some of the looseness
if you go with liquid cooling, but that means you now accept one more
system that can leak and bring down your plane. So air cooling is
the norm. Deviations from air cooling come with weight penalties and
potential "ruggedness" penalties like the forementioned leak worry.
Also, since we're trying to run high power levels, swinging a big
prop at sub-sonic speeds, we need engines that run lots of power
at low RPM. Sure, you can throw a gearbox on a high RPM engine, but
now you have additional parts, weight, harmonics to consider, and
all of that is more that can have an issue. So any deviation
from the bore/stroke format comes with it's own set of issues.
2) Electronic ignition. Yes, I'm a fan myself. But, think about
the goal when they made the engine... Self-sufficient power source
that doesn't require a battery. Other than the POTENTIAL of
the P-Mag, there isn't much out there that can give you that.
So while you can get benefits from EI, you now add a significant
downside that you have to compensate for. In my case, I left
one mag in place as my compensation plan. But if you drop both
mags, now you have a lot more to think and worry about that your
airplane relies on. This is significant. I hear people rave
about Auto plugs. I did too. Now I'm not so sure. I had the
bad situation of having a high mag drop on one run-up. I remembered
that the engine maybe was SLIGHTLY rougher on landing the last
flight too. I checked and sure enough, one of my auto plug
wire caps had popped off...on the TOP of the engine.
I put it on, went flying, and when I landed again, it was
once again off. After that happened, I ordered new wire and caps
for all cylinders. Mine had begun to age after being removed
many times for inspections, and were no longer as tight as before.
I now view it from a completely different perspective. I think
auto plugs are nice in that they're cheap, but I'd almost rather
have the ability for my Lightspeed ignition to use AIRPLANE
fine wire plugs instead. At least those have wrench-on wire
attachments. Yeah, they weight more, cost more, and all that,
but they don't come off on their own. Think about the guys
running auto plugs on their bottom plug sets...I personally
now have a real concern about that and would recommend if you
do that, that you actually RTV the cap right to the plug.
It will, however, make maintenance less fun. But to me, auto
plugs are not the panacea they were before.
3) Fuel injection. Well, the old lycoming injection is very
hard to have a total fuel starvation issue. Now, if you go to
electronically operated injectors, you have other things that
can take your engine out. How about this for personal experience...
I had a chevy diesel truck. It had a mechanical injection system.
No issues, and it ran forever, and got great mileage...24mpg
for my suburban I remember on one trip, loaded with maybe 8
people and towing a trailer. One day I wanted to turbo charge
it. I decided to buy a used engine and rebuild it and
put a turbo on it and swap it. I located an engine that had
only 400 miles on it. It needed to be re-sleeved on one cylinder
but otherwise needed just basic work to get it ready. Why did
it need re-sleeving? Well, it was from a newer diesel truck.
That truck had the newer electronic injection on it. Something
had gone wrong that had caused that cylinder to melt down.
Just that cylinder. Electronic injection. I was so happy
at the time that I got the engine cheap...I put on a nice rebuilt
mechanical injection system and drove it for years. That
and a few other things taught me that on my diesel truck, the
LESS electronic you make it, the more reliable it can be in
some cases. Yeah, old, but fairly bullet proof.
4) Form factor: Sure, you could probably design a better
shaped engine with a better case and everything else. But,
engines only get mass produced when there is mass market for
them. If you go significantly away from the normal engine
mount methods or shape, you now eliminate a HUGE percentage
of your potential customers for retrofits. So, given the
low sales potential, I can see why a company would stick
with tried and true. Any alternative engine would have to
use normal mounts and attachments.
5) More on electronic controls: Have you ever had a car that
had the check engine light on and it didn't run so well?
Maybe because the MAP sensor, or O2 sensor or Throttle position
sensor, or just any other sensor didn't work quite right?
Man, I would really rather just have a simple engine, with
a nice fully instrumented monitoring system. Also, I'm not
an airplane "Driver", I'm a "pilot" or "Aviator". I actually
enjoy operating the mixture lever. I like the added challenge,
as minimal as it is. I like it that if my CHT's seem high,
I can lean it out more past peak, or richen it more ROP,
and watch the temps come down. It gives me pleasure and
a feeling of security that I have the ability to change
that engine parameter, along with RPM and throttle, to
affect a change in how the engine runs. If it were all
automatic, I'd not know what's really happening in that little
black box, and my options are limited.
So I'm not saying that things can't be improved upon, but
I really don't know that there is as much as some people
think that NEEDS improving. To me, the only real thing
that I'd complain about is that the cost is too high.
I'd also like it if certified engines could come with
maybe 1/2 of the electrical system using EI, like I do,
so that you can get the benefits of EI, while maintaining
some semblance of electrical independence.
New technologies are not simply "better" or "worse", in many cases,
but in many ways, the old "tractor engine" as it's been recently
called (Not that I've ever seen one like it on a tractor, but
maybe a VW), is hard to beat from a standard reliability in
flight metric. To me, reliability in flight is probably the
SINGLE most important thing that an airplane engine needs to have,
is it not? I'm about to do another few hundred miles over
the ocean soon....I know to me it matters a lot.
Tim
On 4/22/2015 3:53 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> I think you are misinterpreting some of the comments. It is not that is
> how we have always done it. Yes, the IO540 has been around since the
> mid-sixties. However, it was really advanced for its time. Cars were
> running 4 barrel carburetors with points controlled distributors back
> then. No one has shown better fuel efficiency on avgas than the IO-540
> will do lean of peak, beyond what an electronic ignition does to improve
> control of spark advance. That gives you 5% plus or minus a little. By
> 1970 there was the dual turbo charged 350+ hpTIO-540 on Chieftains and
> the TIO541 on Dukes. If there is efficiency to be added by timed fuel
> injection, I have not seen the data. There is efficiency available with
> direct injection to the cylinders with very high fuel pressures, but
> that isn't what is being discussed. Whether the fuel is delivered when
> the valves are open or continuous is talking about around a 50th of a
> second. To operate that unquantified benefit, you have the extra cost of
> the unit plus another thousand or so in a fully redundant electrical
> system.
> Since, as you say you still have a mixture control, you probably haven't
> gained much over the engines that had altitude compensating fuel pumps
> to adjust the mixture for altitude. Most of what is being considered
> "new" was invented 40-50 years ago and used on race cars. Only the
> volume of mass production for cars has changed the costs somewhat. Many
> cars have had continuous fuel injection for a very long time. It took
> the combination of unleaded fuel, closed loop feedback and higher
> compression with knock sensors to make much improvement. There are
> factors for cars like cold and hot start emissions and part throttle
> economy that drive a lot of the choices.
> The main point is that yes you can make all the experimental choices you
> want, but there are costs, and not much has been proven effective and
> durable at this point.
>
> On 4/22/2015 8:07 AM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.
>>
>> It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has
>> their own opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.
>>
>> While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always
>> done it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be
>> made to ancient tractor engines that we are using...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
| From: | Neal George <neal.george(at)gmail.com> |
Well said, Phil...
Neal George
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> You are touching on a few things I have been thinking about. Recognizing y
our newness to the experimental side of aviation is very important.
>
> When I started my RV-10 seven years ago, I too was new to the experimental
side. At the time my exposure/experience was very limited. Sure, I had so
me knowledge of how things work, how they should work if I modify things, an
d how they should react. To simply put it, I had knowledge but very littl
e real world experience; my window of real-world exposure was very narrow.
>
> At that point, I hadn't had friends who had accidents. I hadn't lost any f
riends. As a result my eyes were wide open because I didn't know what I di
dn't know.
>
> As I sit here at lunch typing this message on my iPhone, I have 7 years of
history behind me.
>
> 7 years ago my personal impact record was clean and in looking in the rear
view mirror I now have 2 friends who managed to dead stick their airplane a
fter engine failure. One of them has gone through 7 engines in his velocity
(costing him more than a Lycoming) and he is now putting a Lycoming in it a
fter finally giving up.
>
> But those are the good stories because today I have 4 (other) friends who a
re dead from 3 accidents. All of them were in alternative engine aircraft.
All of them were the direct result of the engine.
>
> Today I now have some experience to go along with that knowledge I had whe
n I started. My window of exposure to experimental aviation is now wider an
d is balanced by real experience.
>
> I'm tired of losing friends. I'm tired of seeing their wives and kids gri
eve. I'm tired of all of it. It sucks.
>
> If there's one good thing about a 7-8 year build, it's that you're given a
n opportunity to get exposure to some stuff you otherwise wouldn't.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for chiming in, Rocketman. Unlike a lot of you, I'm new to this w
hole homebuilt thing, but I take the the concept of "experimental" seriously
. I think that there's a strong tendency to simply want to put an airplane t
ogether, and while that's a valid option these days, it doesn't have to be l
imited to that. I'm just now struggling with diving into the actual experim
ental aspects of building a kit. Up until now, everything I've done has been
pretty much verbatim following the (mostly) excellent instructions. It's n
ice to be able to make progress on building an airplane without thinking abo
ut it, but a huge part of the appeal of a homebuilt is the ability to make m
y own decisions about how I think an aircraft should be equipped. And now, a
s I'm making progress on the wings I'm having to make some real decisions, a
nd I keep trying to remind myself that's a good thing. It drives me crazy t
hat piston aircraft engines are stuck with 1950's technology when so much be
tter is available, and I hope that by being a (somewhat) early adopter of EFI
that I can help turn the tide toward affordable, modern engine management.
Buying and installing a system from EFII is only a minor contribution, but t
he more of us there are moving forward, the faster we'll get there. I wasn'
t around when the EAB community started adopting things like glass panel dis
plays, but I'm sure there were plenty of naysayers then, too. Still, I welc
ome all the comments: it's a very valid point that there's currently only on
e RV-10 that we know about with an EFII system, but it's a risk I'm willing t
o take. At some point there were no RV-10s flying at all. I love not havin
g to be first; I'm glad that there were 1,534 kits sold before mine, but I'm
not afraid of building something that's actually experimental. After all, I
'm going to have to paint that word on the plane. I love that this community
exists and that, so far, everything I want to do has been done in some form
or fashion by someone else. Keep telling me I'm insane for not priming or p
lanning on an EFII system. Those are valid opinions, and I like hearing the
m. Thanks for being out there--this is one of the first times I've actually
had to ask questions, because almost every question I've had can be answere
d by a web search.
>>
>> Berck
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Rocketman1988 w
rote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.
>>>
>>> It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has their o
wn opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.
>>>
>>> While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always done
it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made to ancie
nt tractor engines that we are using...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> ==========
>>> FORUMS -
>>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> b Site -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology of the ancient
times but VW works, too.
Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion. Everyone has their
own OPINION, and each is entitled to it. It doesn't make any opinion correct
or incorrect but it does serve to circulate more information...and that is
good.
Still going with the EFII system :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441145#441145
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
No worries, I don't think "Tractor Engine" is even a slam. I think if
I wanted ultimate reliability out of my engine, I'd WANT a tractor
engine, a Semi Tractor engine, a UPS truck engine.... those guys
couldn't run a business if their engine broke down, so hey, if it's
a tractor engine that's fine. At least maybe it keeps running and running.
Tim
On 4/22/2015 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>
> The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology of the ancient
times but VW works, too.
>
> Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion. Everyone has
their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it. It doesn't make any opinion correct
or incorrect but it does serve to circulate more information...and that
is good.
>
> Still going with the EFII system :D
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Leikam <arplnplt(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
I=99ve told non-pilot friends who ask, that my engine is like
having a big lawn mower engine on the front of the plane. Air cooled,
magneto fired and silly simple. Change the oil and it runs forever.
Just has electric start. (Obviously more to it than that but in simple
terms)
I also wonder what we would all think about an IO-540 if it just was
introduced on the market this year, and previously all aircraft engines
were liquid cooled, EFI, high RPM auto engines.
Dave Leikam
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Neal George
wrote:
>
> Well said, Phil...
>
> Neal George
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Phillip Perry > wrote:
>
>> You are touching on a few things I have been thinking about.
Recognizing your newness to the experimental side of aviation is very
important.
>>
>> When I started my RV-10 seven years ago, I too was new to the
experimental side. At the time my exposure/experience was very
limited. Sure, I had some knowledge of how things work, how they should
work if I modify things, and how they should react. To simply put it,
I had knowledge but very little real world experience; my window of
real-world exposure was very narrow.
>>
>> At that point, I hadn't had friends who had accidents. I hadn't lost
any friends. As a result my eyes were wide open because I didn't know
what I didn't know.
>>
>> As I sit here at lunch typing this message on my iPhone, I have 7
years of history behind me.
>>
>> 7 years ago my personal impact record was clean and in looking in the
rear view mirror I now have 2 friends who managed to dead stick their
airplane after engine failure. One of them has gone through 7 engines
in his velocity (costing him more than a Lycoming) and he is now putting
a Lycoming in it after finally giving up.
>>
>> But those are the good stories because today I have 4 (other) friends
who are dead from 3 accidents. All of them were in alternative engine
aircraft. All of them were the direct result of the engine.
>>
>> Today I now have some experience to go along with that knowledge I
had when I started. My window of exposure to experimental aviation is
now wider and is balanced by real experience.
>>
>> I'm tired of losing friends. I'm tired of seeing their wives and
kids grieve. I'm tired of all of it. It sucks.
>>
>> If there's one good thing about a 7-8 year build, it's that you're
given an opportunity to get exposure to some stuff you otherwise
wouldn't.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Berck E. Nash > wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for chiming in, Rocketman. Unlike a lot of you, I'm new to
this whole homebuilt thing, but I take the the concept of "experimental"
seriously. I think that there's a strong tendency to simply want to put
an airplane together, and while that's a valid option these days, it
doesn't have to be limited to that. I'm just now struggling with diving
into the actual experimental aspects of building a kit. Up until now,
everything I've done has been pretty much verbatim following the
(mostly) excellent instructions. It's nice to be able to make progress
on building an airplane without thinking about it, but a huge part of
the appeal of a homebuilt is the ability to make my own decisions about
how I think an aircraft should be equipped. And now, as I'm making
progress on the wings I'm having to make some real decisions, and I keep
trying to remind myself that's a good thing. It drives me crazy that
piston aircraft engines are stuck with 1950's technology when so much
better is available, and I hope that by being a (somewhat) early adopter
of EFI that I can help turn the tide toward affordable, modern engine
management. Buying and installing a system from EFII is only a minor
contribution, but the more of us there are moving forward, the faster
we'll get there. I wasn't around when the EAB community started
adopting things like glass panel displays, but I'm sure there were
plenty of naysayers then, too. Still, I welcome all the comments: it's
a very valid point that there's currently only one RV-10 that we know
about with an EFII system, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. At some
point there were no RV-10s flying at all. I love not having to be
first; I'm glad that there were 1,534 kits sold before mine, but I'm not
afraid of building something that's actually experimental. After all,
I'm going to have to paint that word on the plane. I love that this
community exists and that, so far, everything I want to do has been done
in some form or fashion by someone else. Keep telling me I'm insane for
not priming or planning on an EFII system. Those are valid opinions,
and I like hearing them. Thanks for being out there--this is one of the
first times I've actually had to ask questions, because almost every
question I've had can be answered by a web search.
>>>
>>> Berck
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Rocketman1988
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.
>>>
>>> It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has
their own opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.
>>>
>>> While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always
done it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made
to ancient tractor engines that we are using...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119
<http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
>>> ==========
>>> FORUMS -
>>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> b Site -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
>>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>>> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>>>
>>
>>
>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>>
>
>
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
Unfortunately for me, 4 dead friends in three accidents is fact. Not
opinion.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988
wrote:
>
> The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology of the
> ancient times but VW works, too.
>
> Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion. Everyone
> has their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it. It doesn't make any
> opinion correct or incorrect but it does serve to circulate more
> information...and that is good.
>
> Still going with the EFII system :D
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441145#441145
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
I'm sorry to hear that Phillip. I am always interested in causal factors in a
viation accident because we have a duty to learn from the mistakes of others
. Do you have any specific lessons learned that you would like to share with
the rest of us? Were any of these accidents employing the use of the EFII s
ystem specifically? Were they automotive engines adapted for aviation use?
Thanks for sharing lessons learned.
Justin
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 18:26, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> Unfortunately for me, 4 dead friends in three accidents is fact. Not opin
ion.
>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988 wr
ote:
>>
>> The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology of the a
ncient times but VW works, too.
>>
>> Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion. Everyone h
as their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it. It doesn't make any opini
on correct or incorrect but it does serve to circulate more information...an
d that is good.
>>
>> Still going with the EFII system :D
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441145#441145
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ben" <n801bh(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
I will add to the other side of the coin.... ALOT of alternative engine
powered experimental planes suffer from "pie in the sky" dreams and fail
in predictable ways... For example... Take the guy from Texas who was a
ble to stuff a LS Chevy into various airframes and claim is will work wi
th minimal clearance between RED hot exhaust systems radiating massive a
mounts of heat against critical fuel and oil lines...... He didn't lear
n his lesson from the first inflight fire... The second one killed him a
nd his sister... And the other example previously mentioned was poor Ch
ris from Texas who drank the P. Lamar Koolaid and spent years trying to
get into the air after numerous mistakes.... Glad he survived and picked
a Lyc to power his Velocity..To quote a movie line... " A man has to kn
ow his limitations" My experimental just had it's 11th bithday.... Over
500 hours and 100,000 + miles of safe flight.. That equals to 4 plus tim
es around the earth at the equator, and it NEVER has had a off airport e
mergency landing and still running perfectly.... All the time running a
V-8 Ford ( ALTERNATIVE) engine in it... I am dumber that a fence post a
nd I pulled it off..... So far,....The day is still young though.... I
have owned a few certified planes and now that I ventured over to the ex
perimental side, I see that as a badge to explore the uncertain side of
life... It is all of us who do the experimental thing who will move the
ball down the field, make it airframes, motors or avionics... since we a
re at the forefront of certified planes 40 years from now.... Be safe ou
t there kids.... Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:26:02 -0500
Unfortunately for me, 4 dead friends in three accidents is fact.=C2 Not
opinion.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988 w
rote:
The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology of the
ancient times but VW works, too.
Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion.=C2 Ever
yone has their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it.=C2 It doesn't m
ake any opinion correct or incorrect but it does serve to circulate more
information...and that is good.
Still going with the EFII system :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441145#441145
==========
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
==========
FORUMS -
_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
==========
b Site -
=C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
=========
____________________________________________________________
1 Flat Belly Please!
Learn the 30-second Daily Trick that FLATTENS Your Belly
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/553860d1f26d960d163d2st01duc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternate fuel and ignition |
It doesn't really matter what precipitates the crash. It appears that
the RV-10 doesn't have such a good deadstick landing record. (how many
practice power off landings from more than 1/2 mile from the runway?)
Whether it is the pilot's fault, the engine or electrics fault or the
ass-phalt, the result is the same. There is a reason homebuilt aircraft
do not have as good an accident record as production aircraft. We each
have to make choices as to how far we deviate from plans or proven
aircraft products. There is a good record of some products making it
from experimental to certified. Unfortunately probably 3-4 times that
number do not turn our as successes, vanish from the scene.
Unfortunately some of those failures spill blood.
Kelly
On 4/22/2015 7:50 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
> I'm sorry to hear that Phillip. I am always interested in causal
> factors in aviation accident because we have a duty to learn from the
> mistakes of others. Do you have any specific lessons learned that you
> would like to share with the rest of us? Were any of these accidents
> employing the use of the EFII system specifically? Were they
> automotive engines adapted for aviation use?
>
> Thanks for sharing lessons learned.
>
> Justin
>
>
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 18:26, Phillip Perry > wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately for me, 4 dead friends in three accidents is fact. Not
>> opinion.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988 > > wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology
>> of the ancient times but VW works, too.
>>
>> Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion.
>> Everyone has their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it. It
>> doesn't make any opinion correct or incorrect but it does serve
>> to circulate more information...and that is good.
>>
>> Still going with the EFII system :D
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441145#441145
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> D============================================
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> D============================================
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> D============================================
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D============================================
>>
>> *
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternate fuel and ignition |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
Kellym wrote:
> It doesn't really matter what precipitates the crash. It appears that
> the RV-10 doesn't have such a good deadstick landing record.
> *
>
>
[/quote]
As far as I know there have been zero fatalities where RV10's were dead-sticked
to the ground under control, in some cases in less than desirable terrain. The
very first, and now latest, fatal accidents were pilots stalling 50 feet up.
This speaks well of the airframe; perhaps not so well of the pilots.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441159#441159
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternate fuel and ignition |
As an aviation professional with a degree in aviation safety and a career in aviation
I stand with many many other aviation safety professionals when saying
it absolutely matters what precipitates the crash. If it didn't matter, the NTSB
wouldn't exist and we would all still be making the same mistakes Orville and
Wilbur made. We must learn from the mistakes of others. Whether it's the DC-10
that crashed in Iowa after a previously-considered impossible event of the
loss of all three hydraulic systems, the crash of TWA-800, or the RV-10 N62DN
that crashed in Ohio, as aviation professionals, enthusiasts, and builders we
must be vigilant of mistakes that can be made on all levels. We don't know what
we don't know, but we can learn from what others didn't know. We have made
it this far in aviation by progressively learning from everyone's mistakes and
have a duty to continue doing so.
Respectfully,
Justin
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 19:15, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> It doesn't really matter what precipitates the crash. It appears that the RV-10
doesn't have such a good deadstick landing record. (how many practice power
off landings from more than 1/2 mile from the runway?) Whether it is the pilot's
fault, the engine or electrics fault or the ass-phalt, the result is the same.
There is a reason homebuilt aircraft do not have as good an accident record
as production aircraft. We each have to make choices as to how far we deviate
from plans or proven aircraft products. There is a good record of some products
making it from experimental to certified. Unfortunately probably 3-4 times
that number do not turn our as successes, vanish from the scene. Unfortunately
some of those failures spill blood.
> Kelly
>
>> On 4/22/2015 7:50 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
>> I'm sorry to hear that Phillip. I am always interested in causal factors in
aviation accident because we have a duty to learn from the mistakes of others.
Do you have any specific lessons learned that you would like to share with the
rest of us? Were any of these accidents employing the use of the EFII system
specifically? Were they automotive engines adapted for aviation use?
>>
>> Thanks for sharing lessons learned.
>>
>> Justin
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 22, 2015, at 18:26, Phillip Perry > wrote:
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for me, 4 dead friends in three accidents is fact. Not opinion.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988 > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology
>>> of the ancient times but VW works, too.
>>>
>>> Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion. Everyone
has their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it. It
>>> doesn't make any opinion correct or incorrect but it does serve
>>> to circulate more information...and that is good.
>>>
>>> Still going with the EFII system :D
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441145#441145
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> ==========
>>> FORUMS -
>>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> b Site -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> D============================================
>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> D============================================
>>> //forums.matronics.com
>>> D============================================
>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> D============================================
>>>
>>> *
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
| From: | Gary <speckter(at)comcast.net> |
I have been building experimental planes since 1980. My list of dead friends
is a lot longerand so is the list of dead projects. The frustration of thos
e of use who have endured these losses is that "joe new guy" thinks that he i
s the first guy to think of the "new ides/new technology". Or that they are s
marter than those that went before. Many many things have been tried over th
e years and discarded because they did not live up to the hype or had hidden
dangers not apparent on first or even second look.
It is so frustrating to see an idea floated and folks respond with reasons w
hy it probably is not in the best interest of the builder to do it and the n
ew guy takes the attude that he knows better and that the veterans are a bun
ch of old fuddy duddies. Most of us who try and offer suggestions are not t
rying to show that our way is better, if we po po an idea it is because we d
on't think it will get you to where you want to be.
I would like to see an auto engine conversion be successful, but how many fo
lks have tried and tried only to eventually put in a Lycoming. If you want t
o try an auto conversion great, however you need to know that you will be in
for a very long road of frustration and failure before you succeed if you a
re lucky enough to succeed.
A friend gave me some sage advice many years ago, before the turn of the cen
tury, if you think something is a good idea for your plane, go to OSH and if
you can find 5 of that idea in a row and Most of the builders are happy wit
h the idea, go for it. If not you will be embarking on a long road of expe
rimentation. Experimentation is great, but the road is way longer and way m
ore frustrating than you can know going into it.
Gary
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 10:26 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> Unfortunately for me, 4 dead friends in three accidents is fact. Not opin
ion.
>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988 wr
ote:
>>
>> The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology of the a
ncient times but VW works, too.
>>
>> Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion. Everyone h
as their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it. It doesn't make any opini
on correct or incorrect but it does serve to circulate more information...an
d that is good.
>>
>> Still going with the EFII system :D
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441145#441145
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternate fuel and ignition |
"As far as I know there have been zero fatalities where RV10's were
dead-sticked to the ground under control, in some cases in less than
desirable terrain. "
To your point Bob-
http://www.aviationinspector.com/2013/01/pilot-rescued-in-rv-10-plane-crash-near-julian/
Oil connector was loose- lost oil pressure. took it to the mountainous
terrain and walked away.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Turner
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 10:51 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Alternate fuel and ignition
Kellym wrote:
> It doesn't really matter what precipitates the crash. It appears that
> the RV-10 doesn't have such a good deadstick landing record.
> *
>
>
[/quote]
As far as I know there have been zero fatalities where RV10's were
dead-sticked to the ground under control, in some cases in less than
desirable terrain. The very first, and now latest, fatal accidents were
pilots stalling 50 feet up. This speaks well of the airframe; perhaps not so
well of the pilots.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441159#441159
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
"This group will end up with some confidence that they (and their passengers) are
not on the cutting edge of experimental when doing all the wonderful trips
these planes offer. For the second group time and money spent to achieve a new
level of performance is the reward, the flying part is just a nice benefit."
Nicely put.
Obviously then, it is the second group that implements change causing progress,
which the first group then adopts. See, everybody wins...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441178#441178
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternate fuel and ignition |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
"There is a reason homebuilt aircraft
do not have as good an accident record as production aircraft. We each
have to make choices as to how far we deviate from plans or proven
aircraft products. There is a good record of some products making it
from experimental to certified."
I hope you are not insinuating that just because parts are "certified" that they
are necessarily better.
Case in point: Throttle cable on 1957 Cessna 172 needed to be replaced due to
the failure of the cable about 8 inches from the carb end. As the throttle arm
is moved the cable moves through an arc and over time the cable fails. Accordingly,
the cable was being replaced but the FAA wanted a "certified" replacement
(new old stock), which was destined to fail in the same way. ACS, however,
has an "experimental" version of the cable, redesigned with a semi flexible
joint at the failure location, teflon lined, mil-spec tested, for less than half
the price.
Which is "better"?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441179#441179
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Greenley" <wgreenley(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
I have not received any job aids for LG, should I be creating those,
normally they are provided and I just format. Job aids were not in the
requirement doc.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rocketman1988
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 12:47 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?
"This group will end up with some confidence that they (and their
passengers) are not on the cutting edge of experimental when doing all the
wonderful trips these planes offer. For the second group time and money
spent to achieve a new level of performance is the reward, the flying part
is just a nice benefit."
Nicely put.
Obviously then, it is the second group that implements change causing
progress, which the first group then adopts. See, everybody wins...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441178#441178
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
I've wanted to craft a note with my thoughts on the alternative engine
issue but Ben, perhaps unintentionally, captured the essence of it, or
at least some quotable talking points. So here goes...
On 4/22/2015 11:01 PM, Ben wrote (edited):
> My experimental just had it's 11th bithday.... Over 500 hours and
> 100,000 + miles of safe flight.. That equals to 4 plus times around
> the earth at the equator, and it NEVER has had a off airport emergency
> landing and still running perfectly.... All the time running a V-8
> Ford ( ALTERNATIVE) engine in it...
Congrats and Well Done!! That's a very cool machine.
My experimental is coming up on it's 4th with roughly the same hours and
miles of safe flight. All the time running a stock experimental
Lycosaur. I wouldn't have imagined any other result at this point.
> I am dumber that a fence post and I pulled it off..... So far,....The
> day is still young though....
Hardly! I don't know you but would guess you are brighter than most of
us on this forum. I KNOW you are knowledgeable and talented when it
comes to engines if for no other reason than your experience with your
'alternative' engine. You seem totally up to the task. It's a
dangerous fallacy to think any other of us are up to the task of
experimenting safely and productively with alternative engines, even if
the objective is nothing more than a bit of intellectual stimulation and
personal transportation.
The engine is the most complex part of our experimental planes.
'Anybody' can build a Van's kit whether a QB or a pre-hole punched kit.
'Anybody' can mount a Lycoming on the front and most of us could
maintain it. 'Many' of us could modify a kit and mount someone's
alternative engine kit on the front. "A few" of us could trouble shoot
and maintain it successfully. "Very few" of us are up to the task of
developing an alternative engine for an airplane. NO ONE has come up
with an alternative engine solution that the rest of us can buy at any
price point, that performs better and longer than what we can buy from
Lycoming. Many people have tried and are trying. I hope for success
but don't plan on it.
> To quote a movie line... " A man has to know his limitations"
Like any endeavor, some people engaged in the pursuit are not up to the
task. The problem with alternative aircraft engine work is that a failed
engine can hurt and kill very easily. The bar is a bit lower for
alternative fuel systems and ignition systems but a failed engine can
hurt and kill just as easily.
So, to be completely honest, my desire is to try and discourage as many
people as possible from experimenting around with alternative engines
and alternative engine systems, especially around the RV 'family
cruiser' 10. Hopefully, only those with enough knowledge, experience
and talent will persevere and fewer acquaintances will get hurt or die
trying.
Bill "hoping I'm up to the task of maintaining my Lycosaur" Watson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
You know, I had typed a substantial reply but I decided that it just isn't worth
the time. People all have opinions and it is darn near impossible to change
them, therefore, this whole thread is sort of a moot discussion.
This discussion is actually kind of ironic. If everyone settled for "the way it
has always been done", would there even BE the EAA? Obviously, Van thought
there were better ways to do things...what about Rutan? Building an airplane
out of foam and fiberglass? That's just nonsense...
Granted, these guys were not your average Joes but the point is they DIDN'T stay
with the status quo. They redefined it. Only time will tell what or who the
next big thing will be..it's going to be interesting.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441274#441274
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
See Amy Laboda's report on the turbine powered RV-10 in this month's
Kitplanes.
250 shp turboprop. It will out climb the Lycoming after the Lyc starts
pushing temp limits. Especially because the engine is maybe 1/2 wt of the
Lyc.
But, initially it was losing 20+ knots in cruise the the Lyc. After they
rectified the shape and angle of the exhaust pipes, they have it up to
matching the Lyc in cruise. It only burns about 20-25% more fuel below 10K
and maybe somewhat less into the lower flight levels. Not to mention the
engine/prop combo cost as much as an entire, well equipped Lyc powered -10.
But if you fly where avgas is unobtainable, makes sense.
I was concerned it might be pushing the design flutter speed, but
apparently it is sized to provide same power as Lyc. Seems like maybe the
SMA 230 hp French diesel used in 182's would be easier to mount and fly,
with Jet A or diesel fuel available everywhere. Might even beat the Lyc for
fuel efficiency.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
>
>
> The engine is the most complex part of our experimental planes. 'Anybody'
> can build a Van's kit whether a QB or a pre-hole punched kit. 'Anybody'
> can mount a Lycoming on the front and most of us could maintain it. NO ONE
> has come up with an alternative engine solution that the rest of us can
> buy at any price point, that performs better and longer than what we can
> buy from Lycoming. Many people have tried and are trying. I hope for
> success but don't plan on it.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
I've been keeping an eye on that -10 turbine conversion since it first appe
ared at the air shows. The only advantage I could see was for areas where a
v gas was not available or too expensive. The engineering and fabrication i
nvolved had to been quite complicated. Of course the "cool factor" is off t
he charts!
Date: Fri=2C 24 Apr 2015 20:57:00 -0700
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?
From: apilot2(at)gmail.com
See Amy Laboda's report on the turbine powered RV-10 in this month's Kitpla
nes.
250 shp turboprop. It will out climb the Lycoming after the Lyc starts push
ing temp limits. Especially because the engine is maybe 1/2 wt of the Lyc.
But=2C initially it was losing 20+ knots in cruise the the Lyc. After they
rectified the shape and angle of the exhaust pipes=2C they have it up to ma
tching the Lyc in cruise. It only burns about 20-25% more fuel below 10K an
d maybe somewhat less into the lower flight levels. Not to mention the engi
ne/prop combo cost as much as an entire=2C well equipped Lyc powered -10. B
ut if you fly where avgas is unobtainable=2C makes sense.
I was concerned it might be pushing the design flutter speed=2C but apparen
tly it is sized to provide same power as Lyc. Seems like maybe the SMA 230
hp French diesel used in 182's would be easier to mount and fly=2C with Jet
A or diesel fuel available everywhere. Might even beat the Lyc for fuel ef
ficiency.
On Fri=2C Apr 24=2C 2015 at 9:40 AM=2C Bill Watson
wrote:
The engine is the most complex part of our experimental planes. 'Anybody' c
an build a Van's kit whether a QB or a pre-hole punched kit. 'Anybody' can
mount a Lycoming on the front and most of us could maintain it. NO ONE ha
s come up with an alternative engine solution that the rest of us can buy
at any price point=2C that performs better and longer than what we can buy
from Lycoming. Many people have tried and are trying. I hope for success
but don't plan on it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
Also off the charts is the fuel burn and the price tag. The engine alone
costs more than a flying RV-10 with a brand new Lycoming, and fuel burn in
cruise is almost double that of a Lycoming RV-10 (21.7gph versus 11.5gph).
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Danny Riggs
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 7:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?
I've been keeping an eye on that -10 turbine conversion since it first
appeared at the air shows. The only advantage I could see was for areas
where av gas was not available or too expensive. The engineering and
fabrication involved had to been quite complicated. Of course the "cool
factor" is off the charts!
_____
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 20:57:00 -0700
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?
From: apilot2(at)gmail.com
See Amy Laboda's report on the turbine powered RV-10 in this month's
Kitplanes.
250 shp turboprop. It will out climb the Lycoming after the Lyc starts
pushing temp limits. Especially because the engine is maybe 1/2 wt of the
Lyc.
But, initially it was losing 20+ knots in cruise the the Lyc. After they
rectified the shape and angle of the exhaust pipes, they have it up to
matching the Lyc in cruise. It only burns about 20-25% more fuel below 10K
and maybe somewhat less into the lower flight levels. Not to mention the
engine/prop combo cost as much as an entire, well equipped Lyc powered -10.
But if you fly where avgas is unobtainable, makes sense.
I was concerned it might be pushing the design flutter speed, but apparently
it is sized to provide same power as Lyc. Seems like maybe the SMA 230 hp
French diesel used in 182's would be easier to mount and fly, with Jet A or
diesel fuel available everywhere. Might even beat the Lyc for fuel
efficiency.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
The engine is the most complex part of our experimental planes. 'Anybody'
can build a Van's kit whether a QB or a pre-hole punched kit. 'Anybody' can
mount a Lycoming on the front and most of us could maintain it. NO ONE has
come up with an alternative engine solution that the rest of us can buy at
any price point, that performs better and longer than what we can buy from
Lycoming. Many people have tried and are trying. I hope for success but
don't plan on it.
ist" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
ank>http://forums.matronics.com
rget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
I just checked it out. Very cool... or hot or whatever.
I thought the fuel burn numbers were more like 50%+ greater than the Lyc
- expressed in GPH or MPG. But I might wrong there.
Anyway, the turbines always get my attention because I live on a grass
strip with a Jet-A tank (!!). Let's see, we sell the Lyc, modify the
'10, mortgage the house... oh nevermind.
The tale of the exhaust stack problem is interesting. Far beyond where
they guys with the turbine RV-8 were with the cutoff stack. I think it
was reviewed a year or two ago. Apparently it produced so much back
pressure in the engine it couldn't achieve anywhere near full power.
On 4/24/2015 11:57 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> See Amy Laboda's report on the turbine powered RV-10 in this month's
> Kitplanes.
> 250 shp turboprop. It will out climb the Lycoming after the Lyc starts
> pushing temp limits. Especially because the engine is maybe 1/2 wt of
> the Lyc.
> But, initially it was losing 20+ knots in cruise the the Lyc. After
> they rectified the shape and angle of the exhaust pipes, they have it
> up to matching the Lyc in cruise. It only burns about 20-25% more fuel
> below 10K and maybe somewhat less into the lower flight levels. Not to
> mention the engine/prop combo cost as much as an entire, well equipped
> Lyc powered -10. But if you fly where avgas is unobtainable, makes sense.
> I was concerned it might be pushing the design flutter speed, but
> apparently it is sized to provide same power as Lyc. Seems like maybe
> the SMA 230 hp French diesel used in 182's would be easier to mount
> and fly, with Jet A or diesel fuel available everywhere. Might even
> beat the Lyc for fuel efficiency.
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Bill Watson > wrote:
>
> >
> at
>
>
> The engine is the most complex part of our experimental planes.
> 'Anybody' can build a Van's kit whether a QB or a pre-hole punched
> kit. 'Anybody' can mount a Lycoming on the front and most of us
> could maintain it. NO ONE has come up with an alternative engine
> solution that the rest of us can buy at any price point, that
> performs better and longer than what we can buy from Lycoming.
> Many people have tried and are trying. I hope for success but
> don't plan on it.
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Re Turbine RV-10 |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
You might right about the fuel burn..definitely more than the Lyc.
It would be fun to fly with the quiet turbine and simplicity, as long as
someone else was paying the bills.
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
> I just checked it out. Very cool... or hot or whatever.
>
> I thought the fuel burn numbers were more like 50%+ greater than the Lyc -
> expressed in GPH or MPG. But I might wrong there.
>
> Anyway, the turbines always get my attention because I live on a grass
> strip with a Jet-A tank (!!). Let's see, we sell the Lyc, modify the '10,
> mortgage the house... oh nevermind.
>
> The tale of the exhaust stack problem is interesting. Far beyond where
> they guys with the turbine RV-8 were with the cutoff stack. I think it was
> reviewed a year or two ago. Apparently it produced so much back pressure
> in the engine it couldn't achieve anywhere near full power.
>
> On 4/24/2015 11:57 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> See Amy Laboda's report on the turbine powered RV-10 in this month's
> Kitplanes.
> 250 shp turboprop. It will out climb the Lycoming after the Lyc starts
> pushing temp limits. Especially because the engine is maybe 1/2 wt of the
> Lyc.
> But, initially it was losing 20+ knots in cruise the the Lyc. After they
> rectified the shape and angle of the exhaust pipes, they have it up to
> matching the Lyc in cruise. It only burns about 20-25% more fuel below 10K
> and maybe somewhat less into the lower flight levels. Not to mention the
> engine/prop combo cost as much as an entire, well equipped Lyc powered -10.
> But if you fly where avgas is unobtainable, makes sense.
> I was concerned it might be pushing the design flutter speed, but
> apparently it is sized to provide same power as Lyc. Seems like maybe the
> SMA 230 hp French diesel used in 182's would be easier to mount and fly,
> with Jet A or diesel fuel available everywhere. Might even beat the Lyc for
> fuel efficiency.
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Bill Watson
> wrote:
>
>> at
>>
>>
>>
>> The engine is the most complex part of our experimental planes. 'Anybody'
>> can build a Van's kit whether a QB or a pre-hole punched kit. 'Anybody'
>> can mount a Lycoming on the front and most of us could maintain it. NO ONE
>> has come up with an alternative engine solution that the rest of us can
>> buy at any price point, that performs better and longer than what we can
>> buy from Lycoming. Many people have tried and are trying. I hope for
>> success but don't plan on it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> 04/24/15
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Re Turbine RV-10 |
| From: | Jim Combs <jiminlexky(at)gmail.com> |
The engine web page is here:
http://www.pbsvb.com/customer-industries/aerospace/aircraft-engines/tp-100-turboprop-engine
It's rated at 200 HP. These guys extended the fuel tanks at least one bay
per side. Useful load is reduced.
JimC
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> You might right about the fuel burn..definitely more than the Lyc.
> It would be fun to fly with the quiet turbine and simplicity, as long as
> someone else was paying the bills.
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Bill Watson
> wrote:
>
>> I just checked it out. Very cool... or hot or whatever.
>>
>> I thought the fuel burn numbers were more like 50%+ greater than the Lyc
>> - expressed in GPH or MPG. But I might wrong there.
>>
>> Anyway, the turbines always get my attention because I live on a grass
>> strip with a Jet-A tank (!!). Let's see, we sell the Lyc, modify the '10,
>> mortgage the house... oh nevermind.
>>
>> The tale of the exhaust stack problem is interesting. Far beyond where
>> they guys with the turbine RV-8 were with the cutoff stack. I think it was
>> reviewed a year or two ago. Apparently it produced so much back pressure
>> in the engine it couldn't achieve anywhere near full power.
>>
>> On 4/24/2015 11:57 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>> See Amy Laboda's report on the turbine powered RV-10 in this month's
>> Kitplanes.
>> 250 shp turboprop. It will out climb the Lycoming after the Lyc starts
>> pushing temp limits. Especially because the engine is maybe 1/2 wt of the
>> Lyc.
>> But, initially it was losing 20+ knots in cruise the the Lyc. After they
>> rectified the shape and angle of the exhaust pipes, they have it up to
>> matching the Lyc in cruise. It only burns about 20-25% more fuel below 10K
>> and maybe somewhat less into the lower flight levels. Not to mention the
>> engine/prop combo cost as much as an entire, well equipped Lyc powered -10.
>> But if you fly where avgas is unobtainable, makes sense.
>> I was concerned it might be pushing the design flutter speed, but
>> apparently it is sized to provide same power as Lyc. Seems like maybe the
>> SMA 230 hp French diesel used in 182's would be easier to mount and fly,
>> with Jet A or diesel fuel available everywhere. Might even beat the Lyc for
>> fuel efficiency.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Bill Watson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> at
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The engine is the most complex part of our experimental planes.
>>> 'Anybody' can build a Van's kit whether a QB or a pre-hole punched kit.
>>> 'Anybody' can mount a Lycoming on the front and most of us could maintain
>>> it. NO ONE has come up with an alternative engine solution that the rest
>>> of us can buy at any price point, that performs better and longer than
>>> what we can buy from Lycoming. Many people have tried and are trying. I
>>> hope for success but don't plan on it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> 04/24/15
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Re Turbine RV-10 |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
Apparently you are calculating differently than whoever supplied Amy with
data.
>From her article, 180 ft/lb torque = 241 shp + 9 hp exhaust thrust for 250
total. IIRC they were getting ~175kts on ~19gph. To get that speed on Lyc
you likely would need to burn at least 13gph LOP for 75% power.
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Jim Combs wrote:
> The engine web page is here:
>
>
> http://www.pbsvb.com/customer-industries/aerospace/aircraft-engines/tp-100-turboprop-engine
>
> It's rated at 200 HP. These guys extended the fuel tanks at least one bay
> per side. Useful load is reduced.
>
> JimC
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Kelly McMullen
> wrote:
>
>> You might right about the fuel burn..definitely more than the Lyc.
>> It would be fun to fly with the quiet turbine and simplicity, as long as
>> someone else was paying the bills.
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Bill Watson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I just checked it out. Very cool... or hot or whatever.
>>>
>>> I thought the fuel burn numbers were more like 50%+ greater than the Lyc
>>> - expressed in GPH or MPG. But I might wrong there.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the turbines always get my attention because I live on a grass
>>> strip with a Jet-A tank (!!). Let's see, we sell the Lyc, modify the '10,
>>> mortgage the house... oh nevermind.
>>>
>>> The tale of the exhaust stack problem is interesting. Far beyond where
>>> they guys with the turbine RV-8 were with the cutoff stack. I think it was
>>> reviewed a year or two ago. Apparently it produced so much back pressure
>>> in the engine it couldn't achieve anywhere near full power.
>>>
>>> On 4/24/2015 11:57 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>>
>>> See Amy Laboda's report on the turbine powered RV-10 in this month's
>>> Kitplanes.
>>> 250 shp turboprop. It will out climb the Lycoming after the Lyc starts
>>> pushing temp limits. Especially because the engine is maybe 1/2 wt of the
>>> Lyc.
>>> But, initially it was losing 20+ knots in cruise the the Lyc. After
>>> they rectified the shape and angle of the exhaust pipes, they have it up to
>>> matching the Lyc in cruise. It only burns about 20-25% more fuel below 10K
>>> and maybe somewhat less into the lower flight levels. Not to mention the
>>> engine/prop combo cost as much as an entire, well equipped Lyc powered -10.
>>> But if you fly where avgas is unobtainable, makes sense.
>>> I was concerned it might be pushing the design flutter speed, but
>>> apparently it is sized to provide same power as Lyc. Seems like maybe the
>>> SMA 230 hp French diesel used in 182's would be easier to mount and fly,
>>> with Jet A or diesel fuel available everywhere. Might even beat the Lyc for
>>> fuel efficiency.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Bill Watson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> at
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The engine is the most complex part of our experimental planes.
>>>> 'Anybody' can build a Van's kit whether a QB or a pre-hole punched kit.
>>>> 'Anybody' can mount a Lycoming on the front and most of us could maintain
>>>> it. NO ONE has come up with an alternative engine solution that the rest
>>>> of us can buy at any price point, that performs better and longer than
>>>> what we can buy from Lycoming. Many people have tried and are trying. I
>>>> hope for success but don't plan on it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> 04/24/15
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>> *
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Re Turbine RV-10 |
| From: | Kevin Belue <kdb.rv10(at)gmail.com> |
I'd like to see what the fuel flow is at 150kts. I doubt it changes much wit
h speed changes....
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 25, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> Apparently you are calculating differently than whoever supplied Amy with d
ata.
> =46rom her article, 180 ft/lb torque = 241 shp + 9 hp exhaust thrust for
250 total. IIRC they were getting ~175kts on ~19gph. To get that speed on L
yc you likely would need to burn at least 13gph LOP for 75% power.
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Jim Combs wrote:
>> The engine web page is here:
>>
>> http://www.pbsvb.com/customer-industries/aerospace/aircraft-engines/tp-10
0-turboprop-engine
>>
>> It's rated at 200 HP. These guys extended the fuel tanks at least one ba
y per side. Useful load is reduced.
>>
>> JimC
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Kelly McMullen wrot
e:
>>> You might right about the fuel burn..definitely more than the Lyc.
>>> It would be fun to fly with the quiet turbine and simplicity, as long as
someone else was paying the bills.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Bill Watson wro
te:
>>>> I just checked it out. Very cool... or hot or whatever.
>>>>
>>>> I thought the fuel burn numbers were more like 50%+ greater than the Ly
c - expressed in GPH or MPG. But I might wrong there.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, the turbines always get my attention because I live on a grass s
trip with a Jet-A tank (!!). Let's see, we sell the Lyc, modify the '
10, mortgage the house... oh nevermind.
>>>>
>>>> The tale of the exhaust stack problem is interesting. Far beyond where
they guys with the turbine RV-8 were with the cutoff stack. I think it was
reviewed a year or two ago. Apparently it produced so much back pressure i
n the engine it couldn't achieve anywhere near full power.
>>>>
>>>> On 4/24/2015 11:57 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>>>> See Amy Laboda's report on the turbine powered RV-10 in this month's K
itplanes.
>>>>> 250 shp turboprop. It will out climb the Lycoming after the Lyc starts
pushing temp limits. Especially because the engine is maybe 1/2 wt of the L
yc.
>>>>> But, initially it was losing 20+ knots in cruise the the Lyc. After th
ey rectified the shape and angle of the exhaust pipes, they have it up to ma
tching the Lyc in cruise. It only burns about 20-25% more fuel below 10K and
maybe somewhat less into the lower flight levels. Not to mention the engine
/prop combo cost as much as an entire, well equipped Lyc powered -10. But if
you fly where avgas is unobtainable, makes sense.
>>>>> I was concerned it might be pushing the design flutter speed, but appa
rently it is sized to provide same power as Lyc. Seems like maybe the SMA 23
0 hp French diesel used in 182's would be easier to mount and fly, with Jet A
or diesel fuel available everywhere. Might even beat the Lyc for fuel effic
iency.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Bill Watson w
rote:
>>>>>> at
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The engine is the most complex part of our experimental planes. 'Anyb
ody' can build a Van's kit whether a QB or a pre-hole punched kit. 'Anybody
' can mount a Lycoming on the front and most of us could maintain it. NO ON
E has come up with an alternative engine solution that
the rest of us can buy at any price point, that performs better and longer
than what we can buy from Lycoming. Many people have tried and are trying.
I hope for success but don't plan on it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>> 04/24/15
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Windshield install & defrost fans |
| From: | "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com> |
About ready to install windshield but realizing this would best time to plan for
install of defrost fans. Is 4" a standard size? Am I just needing a 4" diam
hole ? Or should it be more or less? Thinking about cutting holes now since
I haven't yet settled on cfm output yet nor acquired fans. Looking for dimension
placement relative to windshield--- as close as possible? 2" from ?
--------
Dave Ford
RV6 for sale
RV10 building
Cadillac, MI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441320#441320
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Windshield install & defrost fans |
Attached photo is what I did. Works well. The hole pattern eliminated the
need for a screen.
I got a dozen or so 3", 0.12A, 12vdc brushless muffin fans from EBay for
perhaps $1 each. You want enough fan to move air, not create a tornado. A
single 2" fan worked well in the RV-8A.
Even with the fans off the heat from the avionics and cabin heat will come
up though the holes. I tend to use the fans more in summer to add
additional cooling for the avionics than in the winter for defrost - but on
the few occasions I needed to defrost these were more than adequate.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rvdave
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 9:34 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Windshield install & defrost fans
About ready to install windshield but realizing this would best time to plan
for install of defrost fans. Is 4" a standard size? Am I just needing a 4"
diam hole ? Or should it be more or less? Thinking about cutting holes now
since I haven't yet settled on cfm output yet nor acquired fans. Looking
for dimension placement relative to windshield--- as close as possible? 2"
from ?
--------
Dave Ford
RV6 for sale
RV10 building
Cadillac, MI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441320#441320
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Windshield install & defrost fans |
It really depends on your panel layout. Mine are about 4" off center. Since
I have an Aerosport panel, the right one is over the comm stack. You just
need to ensure clearance and have an understanding of the likely heat sources.
While the fans are fairly standardized, I would buy them now to ensure the proper
size.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 26, 2015, at 9:34 AM, rvdave wrote:
>
> from ?
>
> --------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Windshield install & defrost fans |
What Bob said....
There really isn't a standard size, so it's best to find your fans and then drill
the holes to match. When I got my fans I bought a 3rd just to keep in a cabinet
for the day when one of the two in the airplane quit working.
I have two fans that are centered between the center rib and the side ribs. Using
the Aerosport panel, that put one over the radio stack and another behind
my PFD/MFD.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 26, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Bob Leffler wrote:
>
>
> It really depends on your panel layout. Mine are about 4" off center. Since
I have an Aerosport panel, the right one is over the comm stack. You just
need to ensure clearance and have an understanding of the likely heat sources.
>
> While the fans are fairly standardized, I would buy them now to ensure the proper
size.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 9:34 AM, rvdave wrote:
>>
>> from ?
>>
>> --------
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Windshield install & defrost fans |
| From: | "bhoppe2" <bruce.hoppe(at)yahoo.com> |
I bought two of these fans and grilles from Amazon (see below) and installed them
so that they are centered between the IP and sub panel and evenly spaced right
and left. They are wired to run continuously at the lowest speed. They come
with jumpers that you can use to insert between the plugs to reduce the speed
from 2000 rpm to 1600 or 1200. They are very quiet at all speeds.
* 80mm Fans https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NEMG9K6/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
* Grilles https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0093Q7YO2/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
--------
Bruce Hoppe
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441326#441326
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven DeFord <riveteddragon(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Quickbuild Wings |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Windshield install & defrost fans |
| From: | "woxofswa" <woxof(at)aol.com> |
I have two suggestions.
1. Pretty obvious, but use a metal grill. A plastic one will melt.
2. A high quality fan will save effort because a cheap fan won't last long. First
one lasted about 10 hours. I then got a much higher quality ball bearing
one. A little noisier which I actually like because it tells me its on but
I can't hear it once the engine is running. I run mine continuously on an integrated
switch breaker and a resister to step the speed down so it lasts longer.
Second fan has 140 hours on it with zero issues.
Although I installed it solely for avionics cooling and defrost purposes, just
yesterday I spent over a half hour in IMC and for a brief period got speckles
of windshield ice most everywhere except above the fan. I would stop short of
calling it anti-ice, but it definitely keeps that part of the windshield warmer.
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Flew May 10 2014
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441354#441354
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
While I was at Sun-n-Fun I made it a point to look at the new engines and i
gnition systems out there. Continental had a diesel and also a gas engine w
ith electronic ignition. So did Lycoming. There were numerous examples of e
ngines for LSAs that had electronic ignition and or FI. These newer designs
seemed to be more cutting edge than C or L engines. That is probably to b
e expected. So=2C the moral of the story is that electronic ignition and to
a lesser degree electronic fuel injection is present and here to stay whet
her we like it or not.
I noticed that the diesel engines were all lower horsepower (+ or - 100 hp)
. It will be more interesting when they can produce a diesel that is of rea
sonable weight and of 250 hp or more. Of course we probably wont be able to
afford to buy them! The diesels are already way too expense to buy unless
you live where avgas is $10+ a gallon.
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?
> From: Rocketman(at)etczone.com
> Date: Fri=2C 24 Apr 2015 20:41:33 -0700
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> You know=2C I had typed a substantial reply but I decided that it just is
n't worth the time. People all have opinions and it is darn near impossibl
e to change them=2C therefore=2C this whole thread is sort of a moot discus
sion.
>
> This discussion is actually kind of ironic. If everyone settled for "the
way it has always been done"=2C would there even BE the EAA? Obviously=2C
Van thought there were better ways to do things...what about Rutan? Build
ing an airplane out of foam and fiberglass? That's just nonsense...
>
> Granted=2C these guys were not your average Joes but the point is they DI
DN'T stay with the status quo. They redefined it. Only time will tell wha
t or who the next big thing will be..it's going to be interesting.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441274#441274
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re Turbine RV-10 |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________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 430 WAAS Comm Settings |
| From: | "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Hi
I have a Garmin 430 WAAS that will randomly break squelch for no reason. There
are some squelch adjustment settings in the setup screens for the 118, 127 and
136.975 freqs. I'd like to compare my setup settings with another unit. Can someone
who has a 430 WAAS drop me a note with their settings so I can compare.
Cheers
Les
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441584#441584
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 430 WAAS Comm Settings |
Similar issue with my 420W in my 6A - ended up being a connected headset next to
an open vent. Didn't change any settings from out of the box / factory...just
unplugged any unused headsets microphones.
-----Original Message-----
>From: kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
>Sent: May 1, 2015 1:04 PM
>To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: 430 WAAS Comm Settings
>
>
>Hi
>
>I have a Garmin 430 WAAS that will randomly break squelch for no reason. There
are some squelch adjustment settings in the setup screens for the 118, 127 and
136.975 freqs. I'd like to compare my setup settings with another unit. Can
someone who has a 430 WAAS drop me a note with their settings so I can compare.
>
>Cheers
>
>Les
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441584#441584
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 430 WAAS Comm Settings |
| From: | Les Kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Hi Ralph
Nothing that simple for me I'm afraid.
Cheers
Les
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 1, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>
>
>
> Similar issue with my 420W in my 6A - ended up being a connected headset next
to an open vent. Didn't change any settings from out of the box / factory...just
unplugged any unused headsets microphones.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: kearney <kearney(at)shaw.ca>
>> Sent: May 1, 2015 1:04 PM
>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RV10-List: 430 WAAS Comm Settings
>>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I have a Garmin 430 WAAS that will randomly break squelch for no reason. There
are some squelch adjustment settings in the setup screens for the 118, 127
and 136.975 freqs. I'd like to compare my setup settings with another unit. Can
someone who has a 430 WAAS drop me a note with their settings so I can compare.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Les
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441584#441584
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How long does your annual take? |
| From: | Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com> |
I'm curious how long (on average) everyone spends on their annual (or
condition inspection, for the pedantic). I"m not including maintenance or
upgrade deferred to annual time--just the inspection and tests. I'm
probably at a good day and a half, which extends to two full days if you
include the oil change and a few other items. Seems like a really long
time, so curious if that's typical.
-Rob
--
Rob Kochman
RV-10 Flying since March 2011
Woodinville, WA
http://kochman.net/N819K
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How long does your annual take? |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
Well,
Not having done one on the 10 yet....
Before I got my A&P, used to do owner assisted annuals on a Cessna 170 in
about 8 hours.
When I bought a Mooney, I would spend about 2 days, sign off 100 hour and
take to IA, open everything back up for him to inspect, put it back
together for total of about 6 hours where nothing was done but look inside
inspection panels, check compression, timing and gear swing. Once I got my
IA I did the annuals in maybe a day and half, but spread out a bit more
because I wasn't paying anyone's labor and I had the time.
I expect the 10 will be 12-15 hours to do the first few. No gear to do much
with besides nose gear tensions. But more to open up and inspect/maintain
in terms of the tunnel, wheel pants and fairings, as well as more avionics.
Just spent an hour today showing an RV-8 owner how to update firmware and
navdata on his new Skyview system.
I must be getting close to finishing...spending almost as much time fixing
stuff and installing new stuff. One of my lift struts broke yesterday. Not
confidence inspiring, since it was just holding the door open.
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rob Kochman wrote:
> I'm curious how long (on average) everyone spends on their annual (or
> condition inspection, for the pedantic). I"m not including maintenance or
> upgrade deferred to annual time--just the inspection and tests. I'm
> probably at a good day and a half, which extends to two full days if you
> include the oil change and a few other items. Seems like a really long
> time, so curious if that's typical.
>
> -Rob
>
> --
> Rob Kochman
> RV-10 Flying since March 2011
> Woodinville, WA
> http://kochman.net/N819K
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
I recall some discussion in the past, debates about standard and heavy duty
lift struts. Last time I searched the archives I followed some links I
found, but never found any connection/cross reference to any national auto
chain such as NAPA to get correct part that clearly comes from some car.
Would prefer in the future to have a more local source than ordering from
Van's, waiting a few days for them to process order, a few more days for
the shipment to traverse down the left coast and eastbound to Aridzona.
Anyone found anything?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How long does your annual take? |
Rob,
To pull all the fairings, open the tunnel, tailcone, wingtips, pull the
interior, grease the wheel bearings, all the service stuff, etc, I'd say
two days is pretty good. I just finished the eighth one on mine and it
took longer than that, but I had a few repair items, too: nose gear SB and
changed the engine dampers, changed a caliper oring, replaced the EFIS
battery. All that was about 30 hours.
--Dave
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rob Kochman wrote:
> I'm curious how long (on average) everyone spends on their annual (or
> condition inspection, for the pedantic). I"m not including maintenance or
> upgrade deferred to annual time--just the inspection and tests. I'm
> probably at a good day and a half, which extends to two full days if you
> include the oil change and a few other items. Seems like a really long
> time, so curious if that's typical.
>
> -Rob
>
> --
> Rob Kochman
> RV-10 Flying since March 2011
> Woodinville, WA
> http://kochman.net/N819K
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How long does your annual take? |
When I do mine, it takes a good weekend plus a few nights.... That includes
removal of all panels, oil change, etc....
Two days is a little short in my experience.....
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 1, 2015, at 11:20 PM, Rob Kochman wrote:
>
> I'm curious how long (on average) everyone spends on their annual (or cond
ition inspection, for the pedantic). I"m not including maintenance or upgra
de deferred to annual time--just the inspection and tests. I'm probably at a
good day and a half, which extends to two full days if you include the oil c
hange and a few other items. Seems like a really long time, so curious if t
hat's typical.
>
> -Rob
>
> --
> Rob Kochman
> RV-10 Flying since March 2011
> Woodinville, WA
> http://kochman.net/N819K
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How long does your annual take? |
I've done probably 30 condition inspections on -10's. If I have an extra set
of hands or two, I can do it in a solid day. Alone, it takes two days. As o
thers have said, a good bit of time is spent just removing panels and fairin
gs. The worst part of the job is greasing the wheel bearings, which takes a l
ot of time and is usually a very messy job.
The -10 takes more time, probably, than a Cherokee 235 I just did. The Chero
kee just doesn't have that many inspection panels, so there are a lot of are
as you can't inspect well. On the -10, for a thorough inspection, you need t
o remove about 1,000 screws, it seems like. Just removing the fairings and p
utting them back on is half the inspection time, probably.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On May 1, 2015, at 11:20 PM, Rob Kochman wrote:
>
> I'm curious how long (on average) everyone spends on their annual (or cond
ition inspection, for the pedantic). I"m not including maintenance or upgra
de deferred to annual time--just the inspection and tests. I'm probably at a
good day and a half, which extends to two full days if you include the oil c
hange and a few other items. Seems like a really long time, so curious if t
hat's typical.
>
> -Rob
>
> --
> Rob Kochman
> RV-10 Flying since March 2011
> Woodinville, WA
> http://kochman.net/N819K
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | How long does your annual take? |
By myself, I might get it done in 16 hours. But it is hard to measure
since I always have something to do on my to do list and while I have
all the fairings off I clean and wax them, etc. And of course, you are
doing this at an airport, so everybody visits when they see your
carone of the more enjoyable aspects of
=9Cworking=9D at the airport.
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kochman
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:21 PM
Subject: RV10-List: How long does your annual take?
I'm curious how long (on average) everyone spends on their annual (or
condition inspection, for the pedantic). I"m not including maintenance
or upgrade deferred to annual time--just the inspection and tests. I'm
probably at a good day and a half, which extends to two full days if you
include the oil change and a few other items. Seems like a really long
time, so curious if that's typical.
-Rob
--
Rob Kochman
RV-10 Flying since March 2011
Woodinville, WA
http://kochman.net/N819K
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Windshield fairing & clips |
| From: | "rvdave" <rv610dave(at)gmail.com> |
Getting ready to pull the trigger on putting the front windshield in. As I'm going
thru the plans I'm wondering how far up the windshield the fairing will overlap
the plex? According to the "tangent" the plans show extending to the door
lower glass that would put it up about 3" or more riding the plexiglass.
At least that's the way I'm interpreting the instructions. Also in photos I've
seen of the black tint on the strip of windscreen I haven't seen the clips showing,
how do you hide the clips so they are not seen? Do you lay black epoxy/fiberglass
before the clips are put on? Do you let black epoxy strip dry first
before installing clips? Confused.
--------
Dave Ford
RV6 for sale
RV10 building
Cadillac, MI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441620#441620
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Windshield fairing & clips |
| From: | "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Dave
I went to a local boating supply house and got some epoxy dye (black) and mixed
that in with the faring epoxy. That worked quite well. All the fiberglass went
on as black due to the dye.
Be sure to get epoxy dye (it is a very thick liquid - very potent) and not powdered
carbon which is a no-no on aluminum.
I seem to recall painting the clips black. Although I seem to recall that they
were low enough on the windscreen that they aren't really visible.
I am sure someone else on the list can provide better guidance on the clips.
Cheers
Les
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441622#441622
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How long does your annual take? |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
This is an interesting thread to get a general idea.
I would say, though, that it takes as long as it needs to. When you are satisfied
that everything is done to your liking, then it is done. It isn't a race...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441623#441623
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Windshield fairing & clips |
You can paint the outside area of the windscreen that gets bonded with flat
black poof can. The epoxy will bond just fine. As Les mentioned, pigment
works well too.
--Dave
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 10:27 AM, rvdave wrote:
>
> Getting ready to pull the trigger on putting the front windshield in. As
> I'm going thru the plans I'm wondering how far up the windshield the
> fairing will overlap the plex? According to the "tangent" the plans show
> extending to the door lower glass that would put it up about 3" or more
> riding the plexiglass. At least that's the way I'm interpreting the
> instructions. Also in photos I've seen of the black tint on the strip of
> windscreen I haven't seen the clips showing, how do you hide the clips so
> they are not seen? Do you lay black epoxy/fiberglass before the clips are
> put on? Do you let black epoxy strip dry first before installing clips?
> Confused.
>
> --------
> Dave Ford
> RV6 for sale
> RV10 building
> Cadillac, MI
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441620#441620
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Windshield fairing & clips |
I shot a black urethane band across the base of the windscreen about
1/2" above where I planned the last piece of glass layup to finish. The
10th and last strip of glass build you lay up is 3 1/2" wide... so it
will finish 1 1/2" above the top of the first strip you lay down (1/2").
Determine where you're going to put the first strip and draw a line from
there to where the last strip will finish. You'll need these lines (and
probably some in between) to guide you through the layup. Remember that
from inside the plane you are looking through the glass at an angle. The
black paint must be well about the height of the last layup if it is
going to successfully hide it.
Jeff Carpenter
40304
the finish line is in site.
On May 2, 2015, at 10:27 AM, rvdave wrote:
>
> Getting ready to pull the trigger on putting the front windshield in.
As I'm going thru the plans I'm wondering how far up the windshield the
fairing will overlap the plex? According to the "tangent" the plans
show extending to the door lower glass that would put it up about 3" or
more riding the plexiglass. At least that's the way I'm interpreting
the instructions. Also in photos I've seen of the black tint on the
strip of windscreen I haven't seen the clips showing, how do you hide
the clips so they are not seen? Do you lay black epoxy/fiberglass
before the clips are put on? Do you let black epoxy strip dry first
before installing clips? Confused.
>
> --------
> Dave Ford
> RV6 for sale
> RV10 building
> Cadillac, MI
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441620#441620
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Westcott Press
1121 Isabel Street
Burbank, CA 91506
jeff(at)westcottpress.com
818-861-7300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Windshield fairing & clips |
It sounds like you are saying that you paint the inside of the windscreen. I
f so, then that is an important point. If you paint the outside, make sure t
hat whatever you use will stick well to both the plexiglass and fiberglass, o
r it could act like mold release and defeat the purpose. I have seen fairing
s before that you could pull off easily by hand because the bond to the meta
l and the plexiglass was poor.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On May 2, 2015, at 5:25 PM, Jeff Carpenter wrote:
>
> I shot a black urethane band across the base of the windscreen about 1/2" a
bove where I planned the last piece of glass layup to finish. The 10th and l
ast strip of glass build you lay up is 3 1/2" wide... so it will finish 1 1/
2" above the top of the first strip you lay down (1/2"). Determine where you
're going to put the first strip and draw a line from there to where the las
t strip will finish. You'll need these lines (and probably some in between) t
o guide you through the layup. Remember that from inside the plane you are l
ooking through the glass at an angle. The black paint must be well about the
height of the last layup if it is going to successfully hide it.
>
> Jeff Carpenter
> 40304
>
> the finish line is in site.
>
>
>
>> On May 2, 2015, at 10:27 AM, rvdave wrote:
>>
>>
>> Getting ready to pull the trigger on putting the front windshield in. As
I'm going thru the plans I'm wondering how far up the windshield the fairin
g will overlap the plex? According to the "tangent" the plans show extendin
g to the door lower glass that would put it up about 3" or more riding the p
lexiglass. At least that's the way I'm interpreting the instructions. Also
in photos I've seen of the black tint on the strip of windscreen I haven't s
een the clips showing, how do you hide the clips so they are not seen? Do y
ou lay black epoxy/fiberglass before the clips are put on? Do you let black
epoxy strip dry first before installing clips? Confused.
>>
>> --------
>> Dave Ford
>> RV6 for sale
>> RV10 building
>> Cadillac, MI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441620#441620
>>
>>
>>
>> - The RV10-List --> &n==========
=============
>>
>>
>
> Westcott Press
> 1121 Isabel Street
> Burbank, CA 91506
> jeff(at)westcottpress.com
> 818-861-7300
>
>
>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Maib <dmaib(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Windshield fairing & clips |
I used the black dye in the epoxy and it worked very well. I don=99t
remember for sure, who recommended that to me back in 2008, but I think
it was Van=99s.
David Maib
40559
770 hours
On May 2, 2015, at 6:51 PM, Jesse Saint wrote:
It sounds like you are saying that you paint the inside of the
windscreen. If so, then that is an important point. If you paint the
outside, make sure that whatever you use will stick well to both the
plexiglass and fiberglass, or it could act like mold release and defeat
the purpose. I have seen fairings before that you could pull off easily
by hand because the bond to the metal and the plexiglass was poor.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
On May 2, 2015, at 5:25 PM, Jeff Carpenter > wrote:
> I shot a black urethane band across the base of the windscreen about
1/2" above where I planned the last piece of glass layup to finish. The
10th and last strip of glass build you lay up is 3 1/2" wide... so it
will finish 1 1/2" above the top of the first strip you lay down (1/2").
Determine where you're going to put the first strip and draw a line from
there to where the last strip will finish. You'll need these lines (and
probably some in between) to guide you through the layup. Remember that
from inside the plane you are looking through the glass at an angle. The
black paint must be well about the height of the last layup if it is
going to successfully hide it.
>
> Jeff Carpenter
> 40304
>
> the finish line is in site.
>
>
>
> On May 2, 2015, at 10:27 AM, rvdave wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Getting ready to pull the trigger on putting the front windshield in.
As I'm going thru the plans I'm wondering how far up the windshield the
fairing will overlap the plex? According to the "tangent" the plans
show extending to the door lower glass that would put it up about 3" or
more riding the plexiglass. At least that's the way I'm interpreting
the instructions. Also in photos I've seen of the black tint on the
strip of windscreen I haven't seen the clips showing, how do you hide
the clips so they are not seen? Do you lay black epoxy/fiberglass
before the clips are put on? Do you let black epoxy strip dry first
before installing clips? Confused.
>>
>> --------
>> Dave Ford
>> RV6 for sale
>> RV10 building
>> Cadillac, MI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441620#441620
<http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441620#441620>
>>
>>
>>
>> - The RV10-List --> &n=========
==============
>>
>>
>
> Westcott Press
> 1121 Isabel Street
> Burbank, CA 91506
> jeff(at)westcottpress.com
> 818-861-7300
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
> //forums.matronics.com
>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
David Maib
dmaib(at)me.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net> |
I read in a recent post that the air coming in the standard naca inlets is 8 deg
warmer than ambient. That post was in regard to placement of temp probe. My
question is regarding cabin comfort. I fly in a hot climate (central ca) and wonder
if the Vans vents are sufficient. I had not planned on overhead vents...would
like to hear from Calif/Arizona folks.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441636#441636
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Windshield fairing & clips |
| From: | "bob88" <marty.crooks(at)comcast.net> |
Indirectly related...what about layering glass around top and sides of windshield,
like a lot of us have done on the side windows? I read somewhere that there
was a delamination problem after flying through heavy rain.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441638#441638
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
The Van's are sufficient, but having an overhead vent isn't a bad idea. I almost
always fly with my vent fully closed, mainly due to the fact that I fly high
enough so the air outside is cold. I usually have it partially to fully open
for takeoff and landing, but in cruise it is never all the way open.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On May 3, 2015, at 1:04 AM, bob88 wrote:
>
>
> I read in a recent post that the air coming in the standard naca inlets is 8
deg warmer than ambient. That post was in regard to placement of temp probe. My
question is regarding cabin comfort. I fly in a hot climate (central ca) and
wonder if the Vans vents are sufficient. I had not planned on overhead vents...would
like to hear from Calif/Arizona folks.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441636#441636
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Windshield fairing & clips |
| From: | Gary <speckter(at)comcast.net> |
Correctly applied fiberglass will not delaminate on the top and sides on the windscreen.
However heavy rain will take even the best paint off. The solution is
a layer of leading edge urethane tape applied over the finish paint. This is
my experience on my 300 mph Glasair III and on my RV10.
> On May 3, 2015, at 1:14 AM, bob88 wrote:
>
>
> Indirectly related...what about layering glass around top and sides of windshield,
like a lot of us have done on the side windows? I read somewhere that there
was a delamination problem after flying through heavy rain.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441638#441638
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ibspud(at)roadrunner.com> |
I have the overhead console and generally use the overhead vents in cruise since
the air velocity is a bit lower and I like the air on my face on hot days. Backseat
passengers also seem to like the overhead vents. Front vents are the best
when it's very hot outside but you can get some moisture through them (not
that we have rain in Arizona). My console is fed air through two of Vans vents
located on the sides just aft of the baggage bulkhead.
Albert Gardner
RV-10 N991RV
Yuma, AZ
---- Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> The Van's are sufficient, but having an overhead vent isn't a bad idea. I almost
always fly with my vent fully closed, mainly due to the fact that I fly high
enough so the air outside is cold. I usually have it partially to fully open
for takeoff and landing, but in cruise it is never all the way open.
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> 352-427-0285
> jesse(at)saintaviation.com
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On May 3, 2015, at 1:04 AM, bob88 wrote:
> >
> >
> > I read in a recent post that the air coming in the standard naca inlets is
8 deg warmer than ambient. That post was in regard to placement of temp probe.
My question is regarding cabin comfort. I fly in a hot climate (central ca) and
wonder if the Vans vents are sufficient. I had not planned on overhead vents...would
like to hear from Calif/Arizona folks.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441636#441636
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
We're based in Livermore, no overhead console, no problems with temperatures in
cruise. On the ground it can be warm. but then nothing less than air conditioning
will help.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441651#441651
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How long does your annual take? |
| From: | "AirMike" <Mikeabel(at)Pacbell.net> |
I usually figure three full days (24 hrs), but I am old - fat - and slow. Really
though I try to do a very thorough job. I do the wheel bearings every other
year. I also clean and polish everything when it is apart. I have the A&P 2x check
my engine work - this is really important to me as they look at this stuff
all the time. This year he caught a nut on the alternator missing. There is
almost always a squak that needs extra time, example are fuel leaks, cranky electronics,
static check, wheel pant damage, worn out tires, new brake linings,
buggered/stuck screw, etc.
--------
See you OSH '15
Q/B - flying 5 yrs.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441652#441652
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How long does your annual take? |
| From: | "Mike Whisky" <rv-10(at)wellenzohn.net> |
My first 100h check took almost four days but included some fixes and the nose
gear SB. Removing and installing all the panels exterior and interior eats time.
I plan for three days.
Mike
--------
RV-10 builder (flying)
#511
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441663#441663
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bill.peyton" <peyton.b(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I installed the Aerosport Overhead Console with two additional NACA vents. For
me it is a must have. I enjoy the air on my face and I also think the air is
actually a bit cooler than the air out of the forward NACA vents. St. Louis
has hot summers and I use all of them during the summer until we get to altitude.
--------
Bill
WA0SYV
Aviation Partners, LLC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441665#441665
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com> |
I finished the FAB this weekend, and after it was all said and done, I have
about a 3/32" gap between the air filter seal and the fiberglass housing.
I think the fiberglass bowed out a little after I finished riveting.
Options I am thinking about:
1) A bead of RTV around the circumference of the filter.
2) Use aluminum and try to build up some kind of lip around the air filter
3) Live with it as is
Any ideas or recommendations?
--
Vernon Franklin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
Perhaps a photo?
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vernon
Franklin
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 9:09 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Filter Air Box
I finished the FAB this weekend, and after it was all said and done, I
have about a 3/32" gap between the air filter seal and the fiberglass
housing. I think the fiberglass bowed out a little after I finished
riveting.
Options I am thinking about:
1) A bead of RTV around the circumference of the filter.
2) Use aluminum and try to build up some kind of lip around the air
filter
3) Live with it as is
Any ideas or recommendations?
--
Vernon Franklin
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 430 WAAS Comm Settings |
| From: | "n1345p" <n1345p(at)suddenlink.net> |
Les,
We had a similar issue with a 430W in a C172. It was chirping all the time, so
we adjusted the squelch value maybe 5 or so a couple times. Then we had the opposite
problem; not hearing center at a distance/poor reception, followed by
poor transmit.
Sent to JA AirCenter who replaced the com board.
In about 10 years this radio has been repaired three times, and maybe 3000 hours
operation. Twice at Garmin including W-conversion and once by JA Air.
mitch
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441668#441668
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Filter Air Box |
Hi Vernon,
If you're saying the filter isn't getting squished down enough into the
fiberglas FAB bottom, then I would not use RTV. You don't want
RTV being ingested. But, the fiberglass WILL wear through if you
just put the filter against it anyway. So what I would do is get
a nice sheet of aluminum, as thick as necessary, probably
at least .040, and bond it or rivet it into the bottom of the FAB
so that the filter can push on that. That way you can avoid
the wear. My plane just turned 1100, and somewhere in the
last few years it had worn more than I wanted into the fiberglass
and I did that to prevent future issues.
Tim.
On 5/4/2015 8:08 AM, Vernon Franklin wrote:
> I finished the FAB this weekend, and after it was all said and done, I
> have about a 3/32" gap between the air filter seal and the fiberglass
> housing. I think the fiberglass bowed out a little after I finished
> riveting.
>
> Options I am thinking about:
> 1) A bead of RTV around the circumference of the filter.
> 2) Use aluminum and try to build up some kind of lip around the air
> filter
> 3) Live with it as is
>
> Any ideas or recommendations?
>
>
> --
> Vernon Franklin
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
Vernon,
I posted a note on this awhile back. As Tim Olson says, the air box
needs an aluminum plate between the bottom fiberglass and the air
filter. Without it the air filter will wear away the bottom of the box.
After re-glassing the air box on the RV-8A a couple of times I figured
this out.
The other problem is the filter will deform with time as there is no
structure in the box to hold the filter shape =93 the filter
bottom tends to shrink making the filter more conical than cylindrical
(see photo #1). Adding the aluminum plate also provides a way to solve
this problem using simple brackets, and adds reinforcement to mount the
alt air control door (second photo). On assembly I added some Pro-seal
between the bottom of the air box and the aluminum plate. The alt air
door rivets sandwich the fiberglass between the plate and the door
flange.
The third photo shows the now fixed air box for the RV-8A (using the
same K&N E-3450 filter as Van=99s provides for the RV-10. The
fourth photo shows the air box I made for the RV-10. You=99ll
note the top plate is inverted. I did this to allow using the K&N
E-1000 filter instead of the E-3450. The E-1000 filter is 3=9D
tall as compared to the E-3450 that is 2.5=9D tall. Note this
photo was taken before I added the notch on the left side of the box to
provide clearance for the control linkage (last photo).
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vernon
Franklin
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 9:09 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Filter Air Box
I finished the FAB this weekend, and after it was all said and done, I
have about a 3/32" gap between the air filter seal and the fiberglass
housing. I think the fiberglass bowed out a little after I finished
riveting.
Options I am thinking about:
1) A bead of RTV around the circumference of the filter.
2) Use aluminum and try to build up some kind of lip around the air
filter
3) Live with it as is
Any ideas or recommendations?
--
Vernon Franklin
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Filter Air Box |
| From: | Ed Kranz <ed.kranz(at)gmail.com> |
Interesting that this came up now.
When I built my FAB, I wasn't happy that the upper plate was putting enough
pressure on the top of the filter when the FAB was bolted in place. To
remedy this, just this past weekend, I took a piece of 062 aluminum and
made an oval slightly bigger than the outside dimensions of the filter...
the idea being that this would be a good wear surface to protect the FAB
fiberglass from the vibrating filter, and also space the filter up tighter
against the upper plate.
To secure the spacer, I "glued" it to the inside bottom of the FAB with a
full thin coat of black RTV. I did this as I didn't want any fasteners
inside the filter that could come loose and get sucked into the motor. I
was hesitant to use RTV, but I used just a thin layer so there isn't any
excess that smeared out (to later break off) and also, even if some RTV did
get out, it would be on the outside of the filter.
It looks like it's going to work well. Can anyone think of any concerns of
using black RTV to glue the spacer plate down??
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Carl Froehlich
wrote:
> Vernon,
>
>
> I posted a note on this awhile back. As Tim Olson says, the air box need
s
> an aluminum plate between the bottom fiberglass and the air filter.
> Without it the air filter will wear away the bottom of the box. After
> re-glassing the air box on the RV-8A a couple of times I figured this out
.
>
>
> The other problem is the filter will deform with time as there is no
> structure in the box to hold the filter shape =93 the filter bottom
tends to
> shrink making the filter more conical than cylindrical (see photo #1).
> Adding the aluminum plate also provides a way to solve this problem using
> simple brackets, and adds reinforcement to mount the alt air control door
> (second photo). On assembly I added some Pro-seal between the bottom of
> the air box and the aluminum plate. The alt air door rivets sandwich the
> fiberglass between the plate and the door flange.
>
>
> The third photo shows the now fixed air box for the RV-8A (using the same
> K&N E-3450 filter as Van=99s provides for the RV-10. The fourth ph
oto shows
> the air box I made for the RV-10. You=99ll note the top plate is i
nverted.
> I did this to allow using the K&N E-1000 filter instead of the E-3450. T
he
> E-1000 filter is 3=9D tall as compared to the E-3450 that is 2.5
=9D tall. Note
> this photo was taken before I added the notch on the left side of the box
> to provide clearance for the control linkage (last photo).
>
>
> Carl
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Vernon Franklin
> *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 9:09 AM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Filter Air Box
>
>
> I finished the FAB this weekend, and after it was all said and done, I
> have about a 3/32" gap between the air filter seal and the fiberglass
> housing. I think the fiberglass bowed out a little after I finished
> riveting.
>
>
> Options I am thinking about:
>
> 1) A bead of RTV around the circumference of the filter.
>
> 2) Use aluminum and try to build up some kind of lip around the air
> filter
>
> 3) Live with it as is
>
>
> Any ideas or recommendations?
>
>
> --
>
> Vernon Franklin
>
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List *
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com *
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Filter Air Box |
While I think maybe proseal would be "better", there is one particular
thing that I think makes your install just fine....the RTV is
all kept on the outside of the filter, even if you DID have
some break free. As long as you have nothing on the inner hole
of that bottom plate that could peel out and get sucked up, I'm
sure it'll be just fine. It will be trapped there forever.
I used epoxy on mine, which I don't think is ideal either.
But as long as it's done in a way that it can't be
ingested, I'm sure it's no problem.
Now, I did find just like Carl did, that the filter shrinks over
time. So, you probably want plenty of keepers to hold the filter
in place. (even more than what the plans specify). Personally,
I think I should have built them out of tougher material as well.
Given that, there ARE some rivets used that hold those spacers
that could be ingested. So that's an inspection item.
My keepers were made per-plans and they wore a little bit
as well, so that's why I'd suggest the tougher material up front.
Something that can withstand the filter's attempt to shrink.
Tim
On 5/4/2015 1:28 PM, Ed Kranz wrote:
> Interesting that this came up now.
>
> When I built my FAB, I wasn't happy that the upper plate was putting
> enough pressure on the top of the filter when the FAB was bolted in
> place. To remedy this, just this past weekend, I took a piece of 062
> aluminum and made an oval slightly bigger than the outside dimensions of
> the filter... the idea being that this would be a good wear surface to
> protect the FAB fiberglass from the vibrating filter, and also space the
> filter up tighter against the upper plate.
>
> To secure the spacer, I "glued" it to the inside bottom of the FAB with
> a full thin coat of black RTV. I did this as I didn't want any fasteners
> inside the filter that could come loose and get sucked into the motor. I
> was hesitant to use RTV, but I used just a thin layer so there isn't any
> excess that smeared out (to later break off) and also, even if some RTV
> did get out, it would be on the outside of the filter.
>
> It looks like it's going to work well. Can anyone think of any concerns
> of using black RTV to glue the spacer plate down??
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Filter Air Box |
| From: | Gary <speckter(at)comcast.net> |
Silicone is not fuel resistant, not a good option.
> On May 4, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Carl Froehlich wr
ote:
>
> Perhaps a photo?
>
> Carl
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vernon Franklin
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 9:09 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Filter Air Box
>
> I finished the FAB this weekend, and after it was all said and done, I hav
e about a 3/32" gap between the air filter seal and the fiberglass housing.
I think the fiberglass bowed out a little after I finished riveting.
>
> Options I am thinking about:
> 1) A bead of RTV around the circumference of the filter.
> 2) Use aluminum and try to build up some kind of lip around the air filt
er
> 3) Live with it as is
>
> Any ideas or recommendations?
>
>
>
> --
> Vernon Franklin
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Filter Air Box |
| From: | Ed Kranz <ed.kranz(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for the replies.
I'm not taking any chances in this area, so I'll peel up the plate and
re-adhere it with ProSeal!
Ed
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Gary wrote:
> Silicone is not fuel resistant, not a good option.
>
>
> On May 4, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Carl Froehlich
> wrote:
>
> Perhaps a photo?
>
>
> Carl
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [
> mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Vernon Franklin
> *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 9:09 AM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Filter Air Box
>
>
> I finished the FAB this weekend, and after it was all said and done, I
> have about a 3/32" gap between the air filter seal and the fiberglass
> housing. I think the fiberglass bowed out a little after I finished
> riveting.
>
>
> Options I am thinking about:
>
> 1) A bead of RTV around the circumference of the filter.
>
> 2) Use aluminum and try to build up some kind of lip around the air
> filter
>
> 3) Live with it as is
>
>
> Any ideas or recommendations?
>
>
> --
>
> Vernon Franklin
>
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List *
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com *
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution *
>
>
> *
>
> D============================================
> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> D============================================
> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
> D============================================
> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> D============================================
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Filter Air Box |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
Either ProSeal or fiberglass epoxy it in. I also see no issue using
countersunk rivets with the shop head on the outside.
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Ed Kranz wrote:
> Thanks for the replies.
>
> I'm not taking any chances in this area, so I'll peel up the plate and
> re-adhere it with ProSeal!
>
> Ed
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Gary wrote:
>
>> Silicone is not fuel resistant, not a good option.
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 4, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Carl Froehlich
>> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps a photo?
>>
>>
>>
>> Carl
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [
>> mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> ] *On Behalf Of *Vernon Franklin
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 9:09 AM
>> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Subject:* RV10-List: Filter Air Box
>>
>>
>>
>> I finished the FAB this weekend, and after it was all said and done, I
>> have about a 3/32" gap between the air filter seal and the fiberglass
>> housing. I think the fiberglass bowed out a little after I finished
>> riveting.
>>
>>
>>
>> Options I am thinking about:
>>
>> 1) A bead of RTV around the circumference of the filter.
>>
>> 2) Use aluminum and try to build up some kind of lip around the air
>> filter
>>
>> 3) Live with it as is
>>
>>
>>
>> Any ideas or recommendations?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Vernon Franklin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List *
>>
>> *http://forums.matronics.com *
>>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution *
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> D============================================
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> D============================================
>> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>> D============================================
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D============================================
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How long does your annual take? |
| From: | Rob Kochman <rv10rob(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks, everyone... glad it's not just me. I think the right long-term
solution is for my kids to grow up to the point they can turn a screwdriver
.
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Rene wrote:
> By myself, I might get it done in 16 hours. But it is hard to measure
> since I always have something to do on my to do list and while I have all
> the fairings off I clean and wax them, etc. And of course, you are doing
> this at an airport, so everybody visits when they see your car
one of the
> more enjoyable aspects of =9Cworking=9D at the airport.
>
>
> Rene'
>
> 801-721-6080
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rob Kochman
> *Sent:* Friday, May 01, 2015 9:21 PM
> *To:* rv10-list
> *Subject:* RV10-List: How long does your annual take?
>
>
> I'm curious how long (on average) everyone spends on their annual (or
> condition inspection, for the pedantic). I"m not including maintenance o
r
> upgrade deferred to annual time--just the inspection and tests. I'm
> probably at a good day and a half, which extends to two full days if you
> include the oil change and a few other items. Seems like a really long
> time, so curious if that's typical.
>
>
> -Rob
>
>
> --
>
> Rob Kochman
> RV-10 Flying since March 2011
>
> Woodinville, WA
>
> http://kochman.net/N819K
>
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List *
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com *
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution *
>
>
> *
>
===========
onics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
===========
===========
om/contribution>
===========
>
> *
>
>
--
Rob Kochman
RV-10 Flying since March 2011
Woodinville, WA
http://kochman.net/N819K
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How long does your annual take? |
A power screwdriver with adjustable torque works wonders. Just be sure
to break free each screw 1/8 of turn or so before applying power.
On 5/4/2015 1:50 PM, Rob Kochman wrote:
> Thanks, everyone... glad it's not just me. I think the right
> long-term solution is for my kids to grow up to the point they can
> turn a screwdriver.
>
> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Rene > wrote:
>
> By myself, I might get it done in 16 hours. But it is hard to
> measure since I always have something to do on my to do list and
> while I have all the fairings off I clean and wax them, etc. And
> of course, you are doing this at an airport, so everybody visits
> when they see your carone of the more enjoyable aspects of
> working at the airport.
>
> Rene'
>
> 801-721-6080
>
> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Rob
> Kochman
> *Sent:* Friday, May 01, 2015 9:21 PM
> *To:* rv10-list
> *Subject:* RV10-List: How long does your annual take?
>
> I'm curious how long (on average) everyone spends on their annual
> (or condition inspection, for the pedantic). I"m not including
> maintenance or upgrade deferred to annual time--just the
> inspection and tests. I'm probably at a good day and a half,
> which extends to two full days if you include the oil change and a
> few other items. Seems like a really long time, so curious if
> that's typical.
>
> -Rob
>
> --
>
> Rob Kochman
> RV-10 Flying since March 2011
>
> Woodinville, WA
>
> http://kochman.net/N819K
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
>
> --
> Rob Kochman
> RV-10 Flying since March 2011
> Woodinville, WA
> http://kochman.net/N819K
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How long does your annual take? |
I put my 12-year-old to work one day per week already. He's perfect for open
ing panels and for crawling in the tailcones for inspection, lubrication and
fabrication. I've even used my 8-year-old a few times.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On May 4, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Rob Kochman wrote:
>
> Thanks, everyone... glad it's not just me. I think the right long-term so
lution is for my kids to grow up to the point they can turn a screwdriver.
>
>> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Rene wrote:
>> By myself, I might get it done in 16 hours. But it is hard to measure si
nce I always have something to do on my to do list and while I have all the f
airings off I clean and wax them, etc. And of course, you are doing this at
an airport, so everybody visits when they see your car
one of the more enjoyable aspects of =9Cworking=9D at the a
irport.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rene'
>>
>> 801-721-6080
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server
@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kochman
>> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:21 PM
>> To: rv10-list
>> Subject: RV10-List: How long does your annual take?
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm curious how long (on average) everyone spends on their annual (or con
dition inspection, for the pedantic). I"m not including maintenance or upgr
ade deferred to annual time--just the inspection and tests. I'm probably at
a good day and a half, which extends to two full days if you include the oi
l change and a few other items. Seems like a really long time, so curious i
f that's typical.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rob Kochman
>> RV-10 Flying since March 2011
>>
>> Woodinville, WA
>>
>> http://kochman.net/N819K
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Rob Kochman
> RV-10 Flying since March 2011
> Woodinville, WA
> http://kochman.net/N819K
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Filter Air Box |
| From: | Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for the detailed photos and ideas.
I definitely think the aluminum plate protecting the fiberglass housing is
the right answer.
After Tim's comment of the fiberglass wearing out over time, I am surprised
that Van's has not addressed this as an AD on all models.
Vernon
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Carl Froehlich
wrote:
> Vernon,
>
>
> I posted a note on this awhile back. As Tim Olson says, the air box need
s
> an aluminum plate between the bottom fiberglass and the air filter.
> Without it the air filter will wear away the bottom of the box. After
> re-glassing the air box on the RV-8A a couple of times I figured this out
.
>
>
> The other problem is the filter will deform with time as there is no
> structure in the box to hold the filter shape =93 the filter bottom
tends to
> shrink making the filter more conical than cylindrical (see photo #1).
> Adding the aluminum plate also provides a way to solve this problem using
> simple brackets, and adds reinforcement to mount the alt air control door
> (second photo). On assembly I added some Pro-seal between the bottom of
> the air box and the aluminum plate. The alt air door rivets sandwich the
> fiberglass between the plate and the door flange.
>
>
> The third photo shows the now fixed air box for the RV-8A (using the same
> K&N E-3450 filter as Van=99s provides for the RV-10. The fourth ph
oto shows
> the air box I made for the RV-10. You=99ll note the top plate is i
nverted.
> I did this to allow using the K&N E-1000 filter instead of the E-3450. T
he
> E-1000 filter is 3=9D tall as compared to the E-3450 that is 2.5
=9D tall. Note
> this photo was taken before I added the notch on the left side of the box
> to provide clearance for the control linkage (last photo).
>
>
> Carl
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Vernon Franklin
> *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 9:09 AM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Filter Air Box
>
>
> I finished the FAB this weekend, and after it was all said and done, I
> have about a 3/32" gap between the air filter seal and the fiberglass
> housing. I think the fiberglass bowed out a little after I finished
> riveting.
>
>
> Options I am thinking about:
>
> 1) A bead of RTV around the circumference of the filter.
>
> 2) Use aluminum and try to build up some kind of lip around the air
> filter
>
> 3) Live with it as is
>
>
> Any ideas or recommendations?
>
>
> --
>
> Vernon Franklin
>
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List *
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com *
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution *
>
>
--
Vernon Franklin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Filter Air Box |
I agree. I have seen planes that came in for inspection where the filter was
about ready to fall through the bottom of the airbox.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On May 4, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Vernon Franklin wr
ote:
>
> Thanks for the detailed photos and ideas.
> I definitely think the aluminum plate protecting the fiberglass housing is
the right answer.
> After Tim's comment of the fiberglass wearing out over time, I am surprise
d that Van's has not addressed this as an AD on all models.
>
> Vernon
>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote:
>> Vernon,
>>
>>
>>
>> I posted a note on this awhile back. As Tim Olson says, the air box need
s an aluminum plate between the bottom fiberglass and the air filter. Witho
ut it the air filter will wear away the bottom of the box. After re-glassin
g the air box on the RV-8A a couple of times I figured this out.
>>
>>
>>
>> The other problem is the filter will deform with time as there is no stru
cture in the box to hold the filter shape =93 the filter bottom tends t
o shrink making the filter more conical than cylindrical (see photo #1). Ad
ding the aluminum plate also provides a way to solve this problem using simp
le brackets, and adds reinforcement to mount the alt air control door (secon
d photo). On assembly I added some Pro-seal between the bottom of the air b
ox and the aluminum plate. The alt air door rivets sandwich the fiberglass b
etween the plate and the door flange.
>>
>>
>>
>> The third photo shows the now fixed air box for the RV-8A (using the same
K&N E-3450 filter as Van=99s provides for the RV-10. The fourth phot
o shows the air box I made for the RV-10. You=99ll note the top plate
is inverted. I did this to allow using the K&N E-1000 filter instead of th
e E-3450. The E-1000 filter is 3=9D tall as compared to the E-3450 th
at is 2.5=9D tall. Note this photo was taken before I added the notch
on the left side of the box to provide clearance for the control linkage (l
ast photo).
>>
>>
>>
>> Carl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server
@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vernon Franklin
>> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 9:09 AM
>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RV10-List: Filter Air Box
>>
>>
>>
>> I finished the FAB this weekend, and after it was all said and done, I ha
ve about a 3/32" gap between the air filter seal and the fiberglass housing.
I think the fiberglass bowed out a little after I finished riveting.
>>
>>
>>
>> Options I am thinking about:
>>
>> 1) A bead of RTV around the circumference of the filter.
>>
>> 2) Use aluminum and try to build up some kind of lip around the air fil
ter
>>
>> 3) Live with it as is
>>
>>
>>
>> Any ideas or recommendations?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Vernon Franklin
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
> --
> Vernon Franklin
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Filter Air Box |
I did send a note to Van's on this, and how I worked the fix. The response I
got led me to believe this is a known issue, and that they have recommended
adding the aluminum plate in the bottom of the air box to those who have ca
lled for help.
Carl
> On May 4, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Vernon Franklin wr
ote:
>
> Thanks for the detailed photos and ideas.
> I definitely think the aluminum plate protecting the fiberglass housing is
the right answer.
> After Tim's comment of the fiberglass wearing out over time, I am surprise
d that Van's has not addressed this as an AD on all models.
>
> Vernon
>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote:
>> Vernon,
>>
>>
>>
>> I posted a note on this awhile back. As Tim Olson says, the air box need
s an aluminum plate between the bottom fiberglass and the air filter. Witho
ut it the air filter will wear away the bottom of the box. After re-glassin
g the air box on the RV-8A a couple of times I figured this out.
>>
>>
>>
>> The other problem is the filter will deform with time as there is no stru
cture in the box to hold the filter shape =93 the filter bottom tends t
o shrink making the filter more conical than cylindrical (see photo #1). Ad
ding the aluminum plate also provides a way to solve this problem using simp
le brackets, and adds reinforcement to mount the alt air control door (secon
d photo). On assembly I added some Pro-seal between the bottom of the air b
ox and the aluminum plate. The alt air door rivets sandwich the fiberglass b
etween the plate and the door flange.
>>
>>
>>
>> The third photo shows the now fixed air box for the RV-8A (using the same
K&N E-3450 filter as Van=99s provides for the RV-10. The fourth phot
o shows the air box I made for the RV-10. You=99ll note the top plate
is inverted. I did this to allow using the K&N E-1000 filter instead of th
e E-3450. The E-1000 filter is 3=9D tall as compared to the E-3450 th
at is 2.5=9D tall. Note this photo was taken before I added the notch
on the left side of the box to provide clearance for the control linkage (l
ast photo).
>>
>>
>>
>> Carl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server
@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vernon Franklin
>> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 9:09 AM
>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RV10-List: Filter Air Box
>>
>>
>>
>> I finished the FAB this weekend, and after it was all said and done, I ha
ve about a 3/32" gap between the air filter seal and the fiberglass housing.
I think the fiberglass bowed out a little after I finished riveting.
>>
>>
>>
>> Options I am thinking about:
>>
>> 1) A bead of RTV around the circumference of the filter.
>>
>> 2) Use aluminum and try to build up some kind of lip around the air fil
ter
>>
>> 3) Live with it as is
>>
>>
>>
>> Any ideas or recommendations?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Vernon Franklin
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
> --
> Vernon Franklin
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Filter Air Box |
As opposed to, gasp, just adding one more line to the FAB plans and putting o
ut a Maintenance Bulletin, so that all future RV's are built with improved d
esign...
Tim
> On May 4, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Carl Froehlich wr
ote:
>
> I did send a note to Van's on this, and how I worked the fix. The respons
e I got led me to believe this is a known issue, and that they have recommen
ded adding the aluminum plate in the bottom of the air box to those who have
called for help.
>
> Carl
>
>
>
>> On May 4, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Vernon Franklin w
rote:
>>
>> Thanks for the detailed photos and ideas.
>> I definitely think the aluminum plate protecting the fiberglass housing i
s the right answer.
>> After Tim's comment of the fiberglass wearing out over time, I am surpris
ed that Van's has not addressed this as an AD on all models.
>>
>> Vernon
>>
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich@verizon.
net> wrote:
>>> Vernon,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I posted a note on this awhile back. As Tim Olson says, the air box nee
ds an aluminum plate between the bottom fiberglass and the air filter. With
out it the air filter will wear away the bottom of the box. After re-glassi
ng the air box on the RV-8A a couple of times I figured this out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The other problem is the filter will deform with time as there is no str
ucture in the box to hold the filter shape =93 the filter bottom tends
to shrink making the filter more conical than cylindrical (see photo #1). A
dding the aluminum plate also provides a way to solve this problem using sim
ple brackets, and adds reinforcement to mount the alt air control door (seco
nd photo). On assembly I added some Pro-seal between the bottom of the air b
ox and the aluminum plate. The alt air door rivets sandwich the fiberglass b
etween the plate and the door flange.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The third photo shows the now fixed air box for the RV-8A (using the sam
e K&N E-3450 filter as Van=99s provides for the RV-10. The fourth pho
to shows the air box I made for the RV-10. You=99ll note the top plat
e is inverted. I did this to allow using the K&N E-1000 filter instead of t
he E-3450. The E-1000 filter is 3=9D tall as compared to the E-3450 t
hat is 2.5=9D tall. Note this photo was taken before I added the notc
h on the left side of the box to provide clearance for the control linkage (
last photo).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Carl
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-serve
r(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vernon Franklin
>>> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 9:09 AM
>>> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: RV10-List: Filter Air Box
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I finished the FAB this weekend, and after it was all said and done, I h
ave about a 3/32" gap between the air filter seal and the fiberglass housing
. I think the fiberglass bowed out a little after I finished riveting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Options I am thinking about:
>>>
>>> 1) A bead of RTV around the circumference of the filter.
>>>
>>> 2) Use aluminum and try to build up some kind of lip around the air fi
lter
>>>
>>> 3) Live with it as is
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Any ideas or recommendations?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Vernon Franklin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Vernon Franklin
>>
>>
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Berck E. Nash" <flyboy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Filter Air Box |
On 05/04/2015 05:45 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
> As opposed to, gasp, just adding one more line to the FAB plans and
> putting out a Maintenance Bulletin, so that all future RV's are built
> with improved design...
> Tim
That'd be nice, but it's much appreciated that this list keeps me
apprised of so many of these issues as I go. I'm thinking that a sort
of centralized list of areas where Van's supplied parts or instructions
are widely known to be inadequate would be really nice for the next
person. All the information is out there, but it's hard to come by.
Has anyone started such a list before I go creating one?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neal George <neal.george(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How long does your annual take? |
Yeah... There's the key.
Break them loose by hand before applying power. If the bit slips, even once, toss
it and mount a new one. Toss any screw with ANY damage to the drive recess.
Then, Boelube or ACS-50 on the threads before re-assembly.
Run the screws in with the screw gun clutch set to its minimum torque and finish
by hand...
Neal George
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 4, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> A power screwdriver with adjustable torque works wonders. Just be sure to break
free each screw 1/8 of turn or so before applying power.
>
> On 5/4/2015 1:50 PM, Rob Kochman wrote:
>> Thanks, everyone... glad it's not just me. I think the right long-term solution
is for my kids to grow up to the point they can turn a screwdriver.
>>
>> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Rene > wrote:
>>
>> By myself, I might get it done in 16 hours. But it is hard to
>> measure since I always have something to do on my to do list and
>> while I have all the fairings off I clean and wax them, etc. And
>> of course, you are doing this at an airport, so everybody visits
>> when they see your carone of the more enjoyable aspects of
>> working at the airport.
>>
>> Rene'
>>
>> 801-721-6080
>>
>> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> ] *On Behalf Of *Rob
>> Kochman
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 01, 2015 9:21 PM
>> *To:* rv10-list
>> *Subject:* RV10-List: How long does your annual take?
>>
>> I'm curious how long (on average) everyone spends on their annual
>> (or condition inspection, for the pedantic). I"m not including
>> maintenance or upgrade deferred to annual time--just the
>> inspection and tests. I'm probably at a good day and a half,
>> which extends to two full days if you include the oil change and a
>> few other items. Seems like a really long time, so curious if
>> that's typical.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> --
>> Rob Kochman
>> RV-10 Flying since March 2011
>>
>> Woodinville, WA
>>
>> http://kochman.net/N819K
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>
>> **
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *
>>
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rob Kochman
>> RV-10 Flying since March 2011
>> Woodinville, WA
>> http://kochman.net/N819K
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How long does your annual take? |
Agreed. Liquid BoeLube is excellent for reducing torque needed to run
screws into nut plates.
On 5/4/2015 7:35 PM, Neal George wrote:
>
> Yeah... There's the key.
>
> Break them loose by hand before applying power. If the bit slips, even once,
toss it and mount a new one. Toss any screw with ANY damage to the drive recess.
Then, Boelube or ACS-50 on the threads before re-assembly.
>
> Run the screws in with the screw gun clutch set to its minimum torque and finish
by hand...
>
> Neal George
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On May 4, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>>
>> A power screwdriver with adjustable torque works wonders. Just be sure to break
free each screw 1/8 of turn or so before applying power.
>>
>> On 5/4/2015 1:50 PM, Rob Kochman wrote:
>>> Thanks, everyone... glad it's not just me. I think the right long-term solution
is for my kids to grow up to the point they can turn a screwdriver.
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Rene > wrote:
>>>
>>> By myself, I might get it done in 16 hours. But it is hard to
>>> measure since I always have something to do on my to do list and
>>> while I have all the fairings off I clean and wax them, etc. And
>>> of course, you are doing this at an airport, so everybody visits
>>> when they see your carone of the more enjoyable aspects of
>>> working at the airport.
>>>
>>> Rene'
>>>
>>> 801-721-6080
>>>
>>> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>>
>>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>> ] *On Behalf Of *Rob
>>> Kochman
>>> *Sent:* Friday, May 01, 2015 9:21 PM
>>> *To:* rv10-list
>>> *Subject:* RV10-List: How long does your annual take?
>>>
>>> I'm curious how long (on average) everyone spends on their annual
>>> (or condition inspection, for the pedantic). I"m not including
>>> maintenance or upgrade deferred to annual time--just the
>>> inspection and tests. I'm probably at a good day and a half,
>>> which extends to two full days if you include the oil change and a
>>> few other items. Seems like a really long time, so curious if
>>> that's typical.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rob Kochman
>>> RV-10 Flying since March 2011
>>>
>>> Woodinville, WA
>>>
>>> http://kochman.net/N819K
>>>
>>> * *
>>>
>>> * *
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> * *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rob Kochman
>>> RV-10 Flying since March 2011
>>> Woodinville, WA
>>> http://kochman.net/N819K
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Filter Air Box |
| From: | "Lenny Iszak" <lenard(at)rapiddecision.com> |
I built a tight fiberglass lip around the bottom that covers the bottom rubber
part, around a 1/4 inch tall, so the filter doesn't move around much. When the
filter is new it fits perfectly, and after about 50 hours it shrinks both in
height and circumference. So if you are still building make sure that it fits
tight at least in height because it shrinks over time. I got a new filter thinking
oh well the other one was already a few years old, just sitting there. The
new one also shrank in 50 or so hours.
Looks like I also need to add a plate to the bottom. The problem I see with Epoxy,
not sure about proseal, that it will have a hard time sticking to the already
fuel/oil soaked fiberglass.
If that piece of aluminum gets unglued, it will rub a hole real quick through the
fiberglass bottom. I'm thinking rivets with washers under the shop head (on
the outside) would work better than glue.
Lenny
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441746#441746
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Filter Air Box |
You can possibly 'bow it back' into a tight fit by applying heat and
pressure to the FG housing. A heat gun will do it.
On 5/4/2015 9:08 AM, Vernon Franklin wrote:
> I finished the FAB this weekend, and after it was all said and done, I
> have about a 3/32" gap between the air filter seal and the fiberglass
> housing. I think the fiberglass bowed out a little after I finished
> riveting.
>
> Options I am thinking about:
> 1) A bead of RTV around the circumference of the filter.
> 2) Use aluminum and try to build up some kind of lip around the air
> filter
> 3) Live with it as is
>
> Any ideas or recommendations?
>
>
> --
> Vernon Franklin
> *
>
>
> *
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Filter Air Box |
I was late to the party... will be re-inspecting my FAB at the next
de-cowling.
On 5/5/2015 11:42 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
> You can possibly 'bow it back' into a tight fit by applying heat and
> pressure to the FG housing. A heat gun will do it.
>
> On 5/4/2015 9:08 AM, Vernon Franklin wrote:
>> I finished the FAB this weekend, and after it was all said and done,
>> I have about a 3/32" gap between the air filter seal and the
>> fiberglass housing. I think the fiberglass bowed out a little after
>> I finished riveting.
>>
>> Options I am thinking about:
>> 1) A bead of RTV around the circumference of the filter.
>> 2) Use aluminum and try to build up some kind of lip around the air
>> filter
>> 3) Live with it as is
>>
>> Any ideas or recommendations?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Vernon Franklin
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>> 05/04/15
>>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | EFII - the jury is coming in |
Well, I think it's about time that I post a few of my experiences with the EFII
system (dual ignition and injection) in the RV-10. I do believe N930M is the
first RV-10, and possibly the first 6-cylinder engine, to be flying with the full
EFII system. I now have 20 hours in it and feel like I should share my experiences
and thoughts on it. I have talked to several people who have shown interest
or who are planning to install it in their -10's, so this is mainly for
those people, or those who may be on the fence.
First of all, it is a system that required, IMHO, a fair bit more planning than
a standard engine with mags and mechanical fuel injection. Even with electronic
ignition on one or both sides. I have had a few misgivings of flying -10's
with dual lightspeeds, but that didn't last very long. I am actually very much
looking forward to flying with the P-mag if/when they ever actually start delivering
them. With dual electronic ignition and electronic injection, though,
it mecomes much more serious. You really should have dual batteries, at at least
dual contactors, if not full dual busses. You really should have dual alternators,
or at least it's a very good idea. You need dual fuel pumps because there
is no engine-driven pump. if any of these systems aren't redundant and the
only one fails, you either are immediately a glider or shortly will be. I know
that the battery can keep you going for a while if the alternator fails, but
I'm not about to test how long that is. I also think it's very important to have
dual ECU's, one controlling each ignition and each can separately control
the injection system. I know this becomes a fairly expensive system, but just
think, at least it's only 30-year-old technology instead of 80-year-old technology.
To be perfectly honest, it took several weeks after first engine run for me to
get up the nerve to climb in and go flying. I was very careful to stay within
gliding distance of the runway for the first several hours. I just didn't fully
understand all that was going on (still don't) and was nervous about being the
test pilot for a new system. I have done first flights before, but never with
a system that had never flown in this configuration before (at least that I
am aware of).
The setup was, honestly, a little disappointing. Rob has been fairly available,
usually with a call back after leaving a voicemail. I know this system has run
on a test stand on more than one occasion, and honestly there were a TON of
settings that I had to put in from a spreadsheet that should have been put in
at the factory. It was not a mystery that this was going in a -10, so the 300
pages of settings should have been preset. After getting them going and doing
the ground testing to setup more accurate fuel mapping, I got to the point where
I was willing to take to the skies.
Most of the above has been fairly negative, but I think a lot of it is plowing
new ground and the time we have spent on this one should help others down the
road. I now have 19.8 hours on the system, and it has not missed a single beat
in flight. There have been some issues in starting and things like that, but
we are figuring out what works. I have not taken the time to tweak all of the
fuel maps and settings, but we have things mostly setup and I have been very impressed
with the way it has operated so far. Up until the last few hours, I have
still told people, "the jury is still out," but I am getting much closer to
a verdict now. It took this long for me to get to the point of saying, "I would
climb in and fly it to the Bahamas," or "I would feel comfortable putting
my kids in it and flying to Kansas."
Some things different about the system and the way the engine runs are the following:
1. I can run this engine as low as 400 rpm and it is smooth. I have never run an
IO-540 lower than 750-850 rpm because it shakes and shudders. It must be a combination
of the variable timing and the fact that the fuel is electronically
injected into the intakes for each cylinder, so at low rpm all cylinders are
still getting the right amount of fuel.
2. I have done some extensive leaning in flight and have yet to get to the point
where the engine stumbles or starts to miss. This is probably related to the
same as #1, but it can run amazingly lean in flight and still run smooth. Yes,
at a point you start loosing enough power that you give up a lot of speed, but
I truly don't think I have seen fuel flows as low in a standard -540 as I have
seen in this one, at the same MAP and RPM settings.
3. There truly is no such thing as a hot start issue. I know, you can tell me until
you are blue in the face that you have a perfect system that works every
time and you never have a problem with hot starts. I have flown probably 20 different
RV-10's and many more than that different fuel injected engines, and the
hot start is more difficult than a cold start. I have a system that works most
of the time, but I have yet to see a system that consistently requires no
more cranking than a cold start. The EFII starts hot exactly the same as it starts
cold, if not a little better. Since so much fuel is being pumped back to
the tank, any time your master is on you have cool fuel in the system.
4. While you can use the mixture knob (potentiometer mounted on the panel) to adjust
your AFR (Air Fuel Ratio), there is truly much less mixture adjustment as
altitude changes as long as power setting doesn't. I know I have said recently,
"if you think you won't be touching the mixture control, you are mistaken,"
or something along those lines. However, as you get things setup more, once
you get setup in cruise with your MAP, RPM and AFR where you want them, you really
can fly the rest of your flight that way...INCLUDING THE DESCENT. This is
something that really stands out to me. Let's say I am flying along at 12,500
feet at 18" MAP, 2,300 RPM and AFR of 16.7. I can descend to pattern altitude
with nothing to touch except the throttle knob. The governor keeps the prop at
2,300 RPM and the EFII keeps the AFR at 16.7 (more or less, but close). With
a standard injection system, I have to keep adding mixture the whole way down.
I usually find myself going to the rich side of peak as I descend simply so
I don't have to adjust the mixture as often. When I see the EGT's start to climb
towards peak, I richen up a bit more. If I don't do this and I don't stay on
it, I end up getting so lean that the plane really accelerates when I add mixture.
With the EFII, you really don't have to touch anything until you are on
final, when you are preparing the mixture knob and the prop control for a go-around
if you need one.
Final thoughts:
1. Would I recommend the EFII system to other people building RV-10's? That depends.
Some people just want to fly. They want to climb in and go somewhere and
not have to think about it. For them I would say, go with mags and a Bendix,
Silverhawk or AFP injection system and enjoy. For those who want to do the tweaking
and testing to get a little better performance or better economy, then this
just might be the system for you.
2. Doesn't useable fuel decrease because you are dumping so much fuel back in the
tank and could start sucking air at a higher fuel level? I burned a tank down
until I saw 0 on the Dynon and it took 29.5 gallons to fill back up. I didn't
wait until it missed, but it was running solid up to that point. I doubt there
is more than a quart of difference in useable fuel, if that much.
3. Would I put my wife and/or children in it? I have already answered this, but
the true answer is, "not all of them at the same time." :) There are too many
of them. Yes, I would put my loved ones in it.
4. Does it truly perform better than a standard system? Honestly, I don't know,
but it sure seems like it does. Without quoting a lot of numbers and comparing,
I think it does perform a little better, and I have not gotten very deep at
all into the tweaking to make it even better yet.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | EFII - the jury is coming in |
VGhhbmtzIGZvciB0aGUgaG9uZXN0IGFuZCBpbnRlcmVzdGluZyBhbnN3ZXIuIE5vdCB3aGF0IEkg
d2FzIHJlYWxseSBleHBlY3RpbmcgZnJvbSB5b3VyIHByZXZpb3VzIHBvc3RzIfCfmIMNCldoYXQg
SSdkIHJlYWxseSBsaWtlIHRvIGtub3cgaXMgaWYgdGhlcmUgaXMgYW55IGZ1ZWwgc2F2aW5ncyBv
dmVyIHNheSBhIEJlbmRpeCBGSS4gSXQgd291bGQgc2VlbSB0aGF0IHRoZSBmdWVsIGVmZmljaWVu
Y3kgaW4gY2xpbWIgYW5kIGRlc2NlbnQgbWlnaHQgc2F2ZSBhcyBtdWNoIGFzIGEgaGFsZiB0byBv
bmUgZ2FsbG9uIHBlciBob3VyLiAgQW55IHRob3VnaHRzPz8NCg0KDQo+IEZyb206IGplc3NlQHNh
aW50YXZpYXRpb24uY29tDQo+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJWMTAtTGlzdDogRUZJSSAtIHRoZSBqdXJ5IGlz
IGNvbWluZyBpbg0KPiBEYXRlOiBUdWUsIDUgTWF5IDIwMTUgMjI6MjA6MTAgLTA0MDANCj4gVG86
IHJ2MTAtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQo+IA0KPiAtLT4gUlYxMC1MaXN0IG1lc3NhZ2UgcG9z
dGVkIGJ5OiBKZXNzZSBTYWludCA8amVzc2VAc2FpbnRhdmlhdGlvbi5jb20+DQo+IA0KPiBXZWxs
LCBJIHRoaW5rIGl0J3MgYWJvdXQgdGltZSB0aGF0IEkgcG9zdCBhIGZldyBvZiBteSBleHBlcmll
bmNlcyB3aXRoIHRoZSBFRklJIHN5c3RlbSAoZHVhbCBpZ25pdGlvbiBhbmQgaW5qZWN0aW9uKSBp
biB0aGUgUlYtMTAuIEkgZG8gYmVsaWV2ZSBOOTMwTSBpcyB0aGUgZmlyc3QgUlYtMTAsIGFuZCBw
b3NzaWJseSB0aGUgZmlyc3QgNi1jeWxpbmRlciBlbmdpbmUsIHRvIGJlIGZseWluZyB3aXRoIHRo
ZSBmdWxsIEVGSUkgc3lzdGVtLiBJIG5vdyBoYXZlIDIwIGhvdXJzIGluIGl0IGFuZCBmZWVsIGxp
a2UgSSBzaG91bGQgc2hhcmUgbXkgZXhwZXJpZW5jZXMgYW5kIHRob3VnaHRzIG9uIGl0LiBJIGhh
dmUgdGFsa2VkIHRvIHNldmVyYWwgcGVvcGxlIHdobyBoYXZlIHNob3duIGludGVyZXN0IG9yIHdo
byBhcmUgcGxhbm5pbmcgdG8gaW5zdGFsbCBpdCBpbiB0aGVpciAtMTAncywgc28gdGhpcyBpcyBt
YWlubHkgZm9yIHRob3NlIHBlb3BsZSwgb3IgdGhvc2Ugd2hvIG1heSBiZSBvbiB0aGUgZmVuY2Uu
DQo+IA0KPiBGaXJzdCBvZiBhbGwsIGl0IGlzIGEgc3lzdGVtIHRoYXQgcmVxdWlyZWQsIElNSE8s
IGEgZmFpciBiaXQgbW9yZSBwbGFubmluZyB0aGFuIGEgc3RhbmRhcmQgZW5naW5lIHdpdGggbWFn
cyBhbmQgbWVjaGFuaWNhbCBmdWVsIGluamVjdGlvbi4gRXZlbiB3aXRoIGVsZWN0cm9uaWMgaWdu
aXRpb24gb24gb25lIG9yIGJvdGggc2lkZXMuIEkgaGF2ZSBoYWQgYSBmZXcgbWlzZ2l2aW5ncyBv
ZiBmbHlpbmcgLTEwJ3Mgd2l0aCBkdWFsIGxpZ2h0c3BlZWRzLCBidXQgdGhhdCBkaWRuJ3QgbGFz
dCB2ZXJ5IGxvbmcuIEkgYW0gYWN0dWFsbHkgdmVyeSBtdWNoIGxvb2tpbmcgZm9yd2FyZCB0byBm
bHlpbmcgd2l0aCB0aGUgUC1tYWcgaWYvd2hlbiB0aGV5IGV2ZXIgYWN0dWFsbHkgc3RhcnQgZGVs
aXZlcmluZyB0aGVtLiBXaXRoIGR1YWwgZWxlY3Ryb25pYyBpZ25pdGlvbiBhbmQgZWxlY3Ryb25p
YyBpbmplY3Rpb24sIHRob3VnaCwgaXQgbWVjb21lcyBtdWNoIG1vcmUgc2VyaW91cy4gWW91IHJl
YWxseSBzaG91bGQgaGF2ZSBkdWFsIGJhdHRlcmllcywgYXQgYXQgbGVhc3QgZHVhbCBjb250YWN0
b3JzLCBpZiBub3QgZnVsbCBkdWFsIGJ1c3Nlcy4gWW91IHJlYWxseSBzaG91bGQgaGF2ZSBkdWFs
IGFsdGVybmF0b3JzLCBvciBhdCBsZWFzdCBpdCdzIGEgdmVyeSBnb29kIGlkZWEuIFlvdSBuZWVk
IGR1YWwgZnVlbCBwdW1wcyBiZWNhdXNlIHRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIGVuZ2luZS1kcml2ZW4gcHVtcC4g
aWYgYW55IG9mIHRoZXNlIHN5c3RlbXMgYXJlbid0IHJlZHVuZGFudCBhbmQgdGhlIG9ubHkgb25l
IGZhaWxzLCB5b3UgZWl0aGVyIGFyZSBpbW1lZGlhdGVseSBhIGdsaWRlciBvciBzaG9ydGx5IHdp
bGwgYmUuIEkga25vdyB0aGF0IHRoZSBiYXR0ZXJ5IGNhbiBrZWVwIHlvdSBnb2luZyBmb3IgYSB3
aGlsZSBpZiB0aGUgYWx0ZXJuYXRvciBmYWlscywgYnV0IEknbSBub3QgYWJvdXQgdG8gdGVzdCBo
b3cgbG9uZyB0aGF0IGlzLiBJIGFsc28gdGhpbiENCj4gIGsgaXQncyB2ZXJ5IGltcG9ydGFudCB0
byBoYXZlIGR1YWwgRUNVJ3MsIG9uZSBjb250cm9sbGluZyBlYWNoIGlnbml0aW9uIGFuZCBlYWNo
IGNhbiBzZXBhcmF0ZWx5IGNvbnRyb2wgdGhlIGluamVjdGlvbiBzeXN0ZW0uIEkga25vdyB0aGlz
IGJlY29tZXMgYSBmYWlybHkgZXhwZW5zaXZlIHN5c3RlbSwgYnV0IGp1c3QgdGhpbmssIGF0IGxl
YXN0IGl0J3Mgb25seSAzMC15ZWFyLW9sZCB0ZWNobm9sb2d5IGluc3RlYWQgb2YgODAteWVhci1v
bGQgdGVjaG5vbG9neS4gDQo+IA0KPiBUbyBiZSBwZXJmZWN0bHkgaG9uZXN0LCBpdCB0b29rIHNl
dmVyYWwgd2Vla3MgYWZ0ZXIgZmlyc3QgZW5naW5lIHJ1biBmb3IgbWUgdG8gZ2V0IHVwIHRoZSBu
ZXJ2ZSB0byBjbGltYiBpbiBhbmQgZ28gZmx5aW5nLiBJIHdhcyB2ZXJ5IGNhcmVmdWwgdG8gc3Rh
eSB3aXRoaW4gZ2xpZGluZyBkaXN0YW5jZSBvZiB0aGUgcnVud2F5IGZvciB0aGUgZmlyc3Qgc2V2
ZXJhbCBob3Vycy4gSSBqdXN0IGRpZG4ndCBmdWxseSB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIGFsbCB0aGF0IHdhcyBn
b2luZyBvbiAoc3RpbGwgZG9uJ3QpIGFuZCB3YXMgbmVydm91cyBhYm91dCBiZWluZyB0aGUgdGVz
dCBwaWxvdCBmb3IgYSBuZXcgc3lzdGVtLiBJIGhhdmUgZG9uZSBmaXJzdCBmbGlnaHRzIGJlZm9y
ZSwgYnV0IG5ldmVyIHdpdGggYSBzeXN0ZW0gdGhhdCBoYWQgbmV2ZXIgZmxvd24gaW4gdGhpcyBj
b25maWd1cmF0aW9uIGJlZm9yZSAoYXQgbGVhc3QgdGhhdCBJIGFtIGF3YXJlIG9mKS4gDQo+IA0K
PiBUaGUgc2V0dXAgd2FzLCBob25lc3RseSwgYSBsaXR0bGUgZGlzYXBwb2ludGluZy4gUm9iIGhh
cyBiZWVuIGZhaXJseSBhdmFpbGFibGUsIHVzdWFsbHkgd2l0aCBhIGNhbGwgYmFjayBhZnRlciBs
ZWF2aW5nIGEgdm9pY2VtYWlsLiBJIGtub3cgdGhpcyBzeXN0ZW0gaGFzIHJ1biBvbiBhIHRlc3Qg
c3RhbmQgb24gbW9yZSB0aGFuIG9uZSBvY2Nhc2lvbiwgYW5kIGhvbmVzdGx5IHRoZXJlIHdlcmUg
YSBUT04gb2Ygc2V0dGluZ3MgdGhhdCBJIGhhZCB0byBwdXQgaW4gZnJvbSBhIHNwcmVhZHNoZWV0
IHRoYXQgc2hvdWxkIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBwdXQgaW4gYXQgdGhlIGZhY3RvcnkuIEl0IHdhcyBub3Qg
YSBteXN0ZXJ5IHRoYXQgdGhpcyB3YXMgZ29pbmcgaW4gYSAtMTAsIHNvIHRoZSAzMDAgcGFnZXMg
b2Ygc2V0dGluZ3Mgc2hvdWxkIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBwcmVzZXQuIEFmdGVyIGdldHRpbmcgdGhlbSBn
b2luZyBhbmQgZG9pbmcgdGhlIGdyb3VuZCB0ZXN0aW5nIHRvIHNldHVwIG1vcmUgYWNjdXJhdGUg
ZnVlbCBtYXBwaW5nLCBJIGdvdCB0byB0aGUgcG9pbnQgd2hlcmUgSSB3YXMgd2lsbGluZyB0byB0
YWtlIHRvIHRoZSBza2llcy4NCj4gDQo+IE1vc3Qgb2YgdGhlIGFib3ZlIGhhcyBiZWVuIGZhaXJs
eSBuZWdhdGl2ZSwgYnV0IEkgdGhpbmsgYSBsb3Qgb2YgaXQgaXMgcGxvd2luZyBuZXcgZ3JvdW5k
IGFuZCB0aGUgdGltZSB3ZSBoYXZlIHNwZW50IG9uIHRoaXMgb25lIHNob3VsZCBoZWxwIG90aGVy
cyBkb3duIHRoZSByb2FkLiBJIG5vdyBoYXZlIDE5LjggaG91cnMgb24gdGhlIHN5c3RlbSwgYW5k
IGl0IGhhcyBub3QgbWlzc2VkIGEgc2luZ2xlIGJlYXQgaW4gZmxpZ2h0LiBUaGVyZSBoYXZlIGJl
ZW4gc29tZSBpc3N1ZXMgaW4gc3RhcnRpbmcgYW5kIHRoaW5ncyBsaWtlIHRoYXQsIGJ1dCB3ZSBh
cmUgZmlndXJpbmcgb3V0IHdoYXQgd29ya3MuIEkgaGF2ZSBub3QgdGFrZW4gdGhlIHRpbWUgdG8g
dHdlYWsgYWxsIG9mIHRoZSBmdWVsIG1hcHMgYW5kIHNldHRpbmdzLCBidXQgd2UgaGF2ZSB0aGlu
Z3MgbW9zdGx5IHNldHVwIGFuZCBJIGhhdmUgYmVlbiB2ZXJ5IGltcHJlc3NlZCB3aXRoIHRoZSB3
YXkgaXQgaGFzIG9wZXJhdGVkIHNvIGZhci4gVXAgdW50aWwgdGhlIGxhc3QgZmV3IGhvdXJzLCBJ
IGhhdmUgc3RpbGwgdG9sZCBwZW9wbGUsICJ0aGUganVyeSBpcyBzdGlsbCBvdXQsIiBidXQgSSBh
bSBnZXR0aW5nIG11Y2ggY2xvc2VyIHRvIGEgdmVyZGljdCBub3cuIEl0IHRvb2sgdGhpcyBsb25n
IGZvciBtZSB0byBnZXQgdG8gdGhlIHBvaW50IG9mIHNheWluZywgIkkgd291bGQgY2xpbWIgaW4g
YW5kIGZseSBpdCB0byB0aGUgQmFoYW1hcywiIG9yICJJIHdvdWxkIGZlZWwgY29tZm9ydGFibGUg
cHV0dGluZyBteSBraWRzIGluIGl0IGFuZCBmbHlpbmcgdG8gS2Fuc2FzLiINCj4gDQo+IFNvbWUg
dGhpbmdzIGRpZmZlcmVudCBhYm91dCB0aGUgc3lzdGVtIGFuZCB0aGUgd2F5IHRoZSBlbmdpbmUg
cnVucyBhcmUgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZzoNCj4gMS4gSSBjYW4gcnVuIHRoaXMgZW5naW5lIGFzIGxv
dyBhcyA0MDAgcnBtIGFuZCBpdCBpcyBzbW9vdGguIEkgaGF2ZSBuZXZlciBydW4gYW4gSU8tNTQw
IGxvd2VyIHRoYW4gNzUwLTg1MCBycG0gYmVjYXVzZSBpdCBzaGFrZXMgYW5kIHNodWRkZXJzLiBJ
dCBtdXN0IGJlIGEgY29tYmluYXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIHZhcmlhYmxlIHRpbWluZyBhbmQgdGhlIGZh
Y3QgdGhhdCB0aGUgZnVlbCBpcyBlbGVjdHJvbmljYWxseSBpbmplY3RlZCBpbnRvIHRoZSBpbnRh
a2VzIGZvciBlYWNoIGN5bGluZGVyLCBzbyBhdCBsb3cgcnBtIGFsbCBjeWxpbmRlcnMgYXJlIHN0
aWxsIGdldHRpbmcgdGhlIHJpZ2h0IGFtb3VudCBvZiBmdWVsLg0KPiAyLiBJIGhhdmUgZG9uZSBz
b21lIGV4dGVuc2l2ZSBsZWFuaW5nIGluIGZsaWdodCBhbmQgaGF2ZSB5ZXQgdG8gZ2V0IHRvIHRo
ZSBwb2ludCB3aGVyZSB0aGUgZW5naW5lIHN0dW1ibGVzIG9yIHN0YXJ0cyB0byBtaXNzLiBUaGlz
IGlzIHByb2JhYmx5IHJlbGF0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIHNhbWUgYXMgIzEsIGJ1dCBpdCBjYW4gcnVuIGFt
YXppbmdseSBsZWFuIGluIGZsaWdodCBhbmQgc3RpbGwgcnVuIHNtb290aC4gWWVzLCBhdCBhIHBv
aW50IHlvdSBzdGFydCBsb29zaW5nIGVub3VnaCBwb3dlciB0aGF0IHlvdSBnaXZlIHVwIGEgbG90
IG9mIHNwZWVkLCBidXQgSSB0cnVseSBkb24ndCB0aGluayBJIGhhdmUgc2VlbiBmdWVsIGZsb3dz
IGFzIGxvdyBpbiBhIHN0YW5kYXJkIC01NDAgYXMgSSBoYXZlIHNlZW4gaW4gdGhpcyBvbmUsIGF0
IHRoZSBzYW1lIE1BUCBhbmQgUlBNIHNldHRpbmdzLg0KPiAzLiBUaGVyZSB0cnVseSBpcyBubyBz
dWNoIHRoaW5nIGFzIGEgaG90IHN0YXJ0IGlzc3VlLiBJIGtub3csIHlvdSBjYW4gdGVsbCBtZSB1
bnRpbCB5b3UgYXJlIGJsdWUgaW4gdGhlIGZhY2UgdGhhdCB5b3UgaGF2ZSBhIHBlcmZlY3Qgc3lz
dGVtIHRoYXQgd29ya3MgZXZlcnkgdGltZSBhbmQgeW91IG5ldmVyIGhhdmUgYSBwcm9ibGVtIHdp
dGggaG90IHN0YXJ0cy4gSSBoYXZlIGZsb3duIHByb2JhYmx5IDIwIGRpZmZlcmVudCBSVi0xMCdz
IGFuZCBtYW55IG1vcmUgdGhhbiB0aGF0IGRpZmZlcmVudCBmdWVsIGluamVjdGVkIGVuZ2luZXMs
IGFuZCB0aGUgaG90IHN0YXJ0IGlzIG1vcmUgZGlmZmljdWx0IHRoYW4gYSBjb2xkIHN0YXJ0LiBJ
IGhhdmUgYSBzeXN0ZW0gdGhhdCB3b3JrcyBtb3N0IG9mIHRoZSB0aW1lLCBidXQgSSBoYXZlIHll
dCB0byBzZWUgYSBzeXN0ZW0gdGhhdCBjb25zaXN0ZW50bHkgcmVxdWlyZXMgbm8gbW9yZSBjcmFu
a2luZyB0aGFuIGEgY29sZCBzdGFydC4gVGhlIEVGSUkgc3RhcnRzIGhvdCBleGFjdGx5IHRoZSBz
YW1lIGFzIGl0IHN0YXJ0cyBjb2xkLCBpZiBub3QgYSBsaXR0bGUgYmV0dGVyLiBTaW5jZSBzbyBt
dWNoIGZ1ZWwgaXMgYmVpbmcgcHVtcGVkIGJhY2sgdG8gdGhlIHRhbmssIGFueSB0aW1lIHlvdXIg
bWFzdGVyIGlzIG9uIHlvdSBoYXZlIGNvb2wgZnVlbCBpbiB0aGUgc3lzdGVtLg0KPiA0LiBXaGls
ZSB5b3UgY2FuIHVzZSB0aGUgbWl4dHVyZSBrbm9iIChwb3RlbnRpb21ldGVyIG1vdW50ZWQgb24g
dGhlIHBhbmVsKSB0byBhZGp1c3QgeW91ciBBRlIgKEFpciBGdWVsIFJhdGlvKSwgdGhlcmUgaXMg
dHJ1bHkgbXVjaCBsZXNzIG1peHR1cmUgYWRqdXN0bWVudCBhcyBhbHRpdHVkZSBjaGFuZ2VzIGFz
IGxvbmcgYXMgcG93ZXIgc2V0dGluZyBkb2Vzbid0LiBJIGtub3cgSSBoYXZlIHNhaWQgcmVjZW50
bHksICJpZiB5b3UgdGhpbmsgeW91IHdvbid0IGJlIHRvdWNoaW5nIHRoZSBtaXh0dXJlIGNvbnRy
b2wsIHlvdSBhcmUgbWlzdGFrZW4sIiBvciBzb21ldGhpbmcgYWxvbmcgdGhvc2UgbGluZXMuIEhv
d2V2ZXIsIGFzIHlvdSBnZXQgdGhpbmdzIHNldHVwIG1vcmUsIG9uY2UgeW91IGdldCBzZXR1cCBp
biBjcnVpc2Ugd2l0aCB5b3VyIE1BUCwgUlBNIGFuZCBBRlIgd2hlcmUgeW91IHdhbnQgdGhlbSwg
eW91IHJlYWxseSBjYW4gZmx5IHRoZSByZXN0IG9mIHlvdXIgZmxpZ2h0IHRoYXQgd2F5Li4uSU5D
TFVESU5HIFRIRSBERVNDRU5ULiBUaGlzIGlzIHNvbWV0aGluZyB0aGF0IHJlYWxseSBzdGFuZHMg
b3V0IHRvIG1lLiBMZXQncyBzYXkgSSBhbSBmbHlpbmcgYWxvbmcgYXQgMTIsNTAwIGZlZXQgYXQg
MTgiIE1BUCwgMiwzMDAgUlBNIGFuZCBBRlIgb2YgMTYuNy4gSSBjYW4gZGVzY2VuZCB0byBwYXR0
ZXJuIGFsdGl0dWRlIHdpdGggbm90aGluZyB0byB0b3VjaCBleGNlcHQgdGhlIHRocm90dGxlIGtu
b2IuIFRoZSBnb3Zlcm5vciBrZWVwcyB0aGUgcHJvcCBhdCAyLDMwMCBSUE0gYW5kIHRoZSBFRklJ
IGtlZXBzIHRoZSBBRlIgYXQgMTYuNyAobW9yZSBvciBsZXNzLCBidXQgY2xvc2UpLiBXaXRoIGEg
c3RhbmRhcmQgaW5qZWN0aW9uIHN5c3RlbSwgSSBoYXZlIHRvIGtlZXAgYWRkaW5nIG1peHR1cmUg
dGhlIHdob2xlIHdheSBkb3duLiBJIHVzdWFsbHkgZmluZCBteXNlbGYgZ29pbmcgdG8gdGhlIHJp
Y2ggc2lkZSBvZiBwZSENCj4gIGFrIGFzIEkgZGVzY2VuZCBzaW1wbHkgc28gSSBkb24ndCBoYXZl
IHRvIGFkanVzdCB0aGUgbWl4dHVyZSBhcyBvZnRlbi4gV2hlbiBJIHNlZSB0aGUgRUdUJ3Mgc3Rh
cnQgdG8gY2xpbWIgdG93YXJkcyBwZWFrLCBJIHJpY2hlbiB1cCBhIGJpdCBtb3JlLiBJZiBJIGRv
bid0IGRvIHRoaXMgYW5kIEkgZG9uJ3Qgc3RheSBvbiBpdCwgSSBlbmQgdXAgZ2V0dGluZyBzbyBs
ZWFuIHRoYXQgdGhlIHBsYW5lIHJlYWxseSBhY2NlbGVyYXRlcyB3aGVuIEkgYWRkIG1peHR1cmUu
IFdpdGggdGhlIEVGSUksIHlvdSByZWFsbHkgZG9uJ3QgaGF2ZSB0byB0b3VjaCBhbnl0aGluZyB1
bnRpbCB5b3UgYXJlIG9uIGZpbmFsLCB3aGVuIHlvdSBhcmUgcHJlcGFyaW5nIHRoZSBtaXh0dXJl
IGtub2IgYW5kIHRoZSBwcm9wIGNvbnRyb2wgZm9yIGEgZ28tYXJvdW5kIGlmIHlvdSBuZWVkIG9u
ZS4NCj4gDQo+IEZpbmFsIHRob3VnaHRzOg0KPiAxLiBXb3VsZCBJIHJlY29tbWVuZCB0aGUgRUZJ
SSBzeXN0ZW0gdG8gb3RoZXIgcGVvcGxlIGJ1aWxkaW5nIFJWLTEwJ3M/IFRoYXQgZGVwZW5kcy4g
U29tZSBwZW9wbGUganVzdCB3YW50IHRvIGZseS4gVGhleSB3YW50IHRvIGNsaW1iIGluIGFuZCBn
byBzb21ld2hlcmUgYW5kIG5vdCBoYXZlIHRvIHRoaW5rIGFib3V0IGl0LiBGb3IgdGhlbSBJIHdv
dWxkIHNheSwgZ28gd2l0aCBtYWdzIGFuZCBhIEJlbmRpeCwgU2lsdmVyaGF3ayBvciBBRlAgaW5q
ZWN0aW9uIHN5c3RlbSBhbmQgZW5qb3kuIEZvciB0aG9zZSB3aG8gd2FudCB0byBkbyB0aGUgdHdl
YWtpbmcgYW5kIHRlc3RpbmcgdG8gZ2V0IGEgbGl0dGxlIGJldHRlciBwZXJmb3JtYW5jZSBvciBi
ZXR0ZXIgZWNvbm9teSwgdGhlbiB0aGlzIGp1c3QgbWlnaHQgYmUgdGhlIHN5c3RlbSBmb3IgeW91
Lg0KPiAyLiBEb2Vzbid0IHVzZWFibGUgZnVlbCBkZWNyZWFzZSBiZWNhdXNlIHlvdSBhcmUgZHVt
cGluZyBzbyBtdWNoIGZ1ZWwgYmFjayBpbiB0aGUgdGFuayBhbmQgY291bGQgc3RhcnQgc3Vja2lu
ZyBhaXIgYXQgYSBoaWdoZXIgZnVlbCBsZXZlbD8gSSBidXJuZWQgYSB0YW5rIGRvd24gdW50aWwg
SSBzYXcgMCBvbiB0aGUgRHlub24gYW5kIGl0IHRvb2sgMjkuNSBnYWxsb25zIHRvIGZpbGwgYmFj
ayB1cC4gSSBkaWRuJ3Qgd2FpdCB1bnRpbCBpdCBtaXNzZWQsIGJ1dCBpdCB3YXMgcnVubmluZyBz
b2xpZCB1cCB0byB0aGF0IHBvaW50LiBJIGRvdWJ0IHRoZXJlIGlzIG1vcmUgdGhhbiBhIHF1YXJ0
IG9mIGRpZmZlcmVuY2UgaW4gdXNlYWJsZSBmdWVsLCBpZiB0aGF0IG11Y2guDQo+IDMuIFdvdWxk
IEkgcHV0IG15IHdpZmUgYW5kL29yIGNoaWxkcmVuIGluIGl0PyBJIGhhdmUgYWxyZWFkeSBhbnN3
ZXJlZCB0aGlzLCBidXQgdGhlIHRydWUgYW5zd2VyIGlzLCAibm90IGFsbCBvZiB0aGVtIGF0IHRo
ZSBzYW1lIHRpbWUuIiA6KSBUaGVyZSBhcmUgdG9vIG1hbnkgb2YgdGhlbS4gWWVzLCBJIHdvdWxk
IHB1dCBteSBsb3ZlZCBvbmVzIGluIGl0Lg0KPiA0LiBEb2VzIGl0IHRydWx5IHBlcmZvcm0gYmV0
dGVyIHRoYW4gYSBzdGFuZGFyZCBzeXN0ZW0/IEhvbmVzdGx5LCBJIGRvbid0IGtub3csIGJ1dCBp
dCBzdXJlIHNlZW1zIGxpa2UgaXQgZG9lcy4gV2l0aG91dCBxdW90aW5nIGEgbG90IG9mIG51bWJl
cnMgYW5kIGNvbXBhcmluZywgSSB0aGluayBpdCBkb2VzIHBlcmZvcm0gYSBsaXR0bGUgYmV0dGVy
LCBhbmQgSSBoYXZlIG5vdCBnb3R0ZW4gdmVyeSBkZWVwIGF0IGFsbCBpbnRvIHRoZSB0d2Vha2lu
ZyB0byBtYWtlIGl0IGV2ZW4gYmV0dGVyIHlldC4gDQo+IA0KPiBKZXNzZSBTYWludA0KPiBTYWlu
dCBBdmlhdGlvbiwgSW5jLg0KPiAzNTItNDI3LTAyODUNCj4gamVzc2VAc2FpbnRhdmlhdGlvbi5j
b20NCj4gDQo+IFNlbnQgZnJvbSBteSBpUGFkDQo+IA0KPiBfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KPiBfLT0gICAgICAgICAg
LSBUaGUgUlYxMC1MaXN0IEVtYWlsIEZvcnVtIC0NCj4gXy09IFVzZSB0aGUgTWF0cm9uaWNzIExp
c3QgRmVhdHVyZXMgTmF2aWdhdG9yIHRvIGJyb3dzZQ0KPiBfLT0gdGhlIG1hbnkgTGlzdCB1dGls
aXRpZXMgc3VjaCBhcyBMaXN0IFVuL1N1YnNjcmlwdGlvbiwNCj4gXy09IEFyY2hpdmUgU2VhcmNo
ICYgRG93bmxvYWQsIDctRGF5IEJyb3dzZSwgQ2hhdCwgRkFRLA0KPiBfLT0gUGhvdG9zaGFyZSwg
YW5kIG11Y2ggbXVjaCBtb3JlOg0KPiBfLT0NCj4gXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cubWF0cm9u
aWNzLmNvbS9OYXZpZ2F0b3I/UlYxMC1MaXN0DQo+IF8tPQ0KPiBfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KPiBfLT0gICAgICAg
ICAgICAgICAtIE1BVFJPTklDUyBXRUIgRk9SVU1TIC0NCj4gXy09IFNhbWUgZ3JlYXQgY29udGVu
dCBhbHNvIGF2YWlsYWJsZSB2aWEgdGhlIFdlYiBGb3J1bXMhDQo+IF8tPQ0KPiBfLT0gICAtLT4g
aHR0cDovL2ZvcnVtcy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQo+IF8tPQ0KPiBfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KPiBfLT0gICAgICAg
ICAgICAgLSBMaXN0IENvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbiBXZWIgU2l0ZSAtDQo+IF8tPSAgVGhhbmsgeW91IGZv
ciB5b3VyIGdlbmVyb3VzIHN1cHBvcnQhDQo+IF8tPSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg
ICAgIC1NYXR0IERyYWxsZSwgTGlzdCBBZG1pbi4NCj4gXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cubWF0
cm9uaWNzLmNvbS9jb250cmlidXRpb24NCj4gXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCiAJCSAJICAgCQkg
IA=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | EFII - the jury is coming in |
Good report Jesse, keep us informed please
Cheers
John MacCallum
VH-DUU
RV 10 # 41016
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2015 12:20 PM
Subject: RV10-List: EFII - the jury is coming in
Well, I think it's about time that I post a few of my experiences with the
EFII system (dual ignition and injection) in the RV-10. I do believe N930M
is the first RV-10, and possibly the first 6-cylinder engine, to be flying
with the full EFII system. I now have 20 hours in it and feel like I should
share my experiences and thoughts on it. I have talked to several people who
have shown interest or who are planning to install it in their -10's, so
this is mainly for those people, or those who may be on the fence.
First of all, it is a system that required, IMHO, a fair bit more planning
than a standard engine with mags and mechanical fuel injection. Even with
electronic ignition on one or both sides. I have had a few misgivings of
flying -10's with dual lightspeeds, but that didn't last very long. I am
actually very much looking forward to flying with the P-mag if/when they
ever actually start delivering them. With dual electronic ignition and
electronic injection, though, it mecomes much more serious. You really
should have dual batteries, at at least dual contactors, if not full dual
busses. You really should have dual alternators, or at least it's a very
good idea. You need dual fuel pumps because there is no engine-driven pump.
if any of these systems aren't redundant and the only one fails, you either
are immediately a glider or shortly will be. I know that the battery can
keep you going for a while if the alternator fails, but I'm not about to
test how long that is. I also thin!
k it's very important to have dual ECU's, one controlling each ignition and
each can separately control the injection system. I know this becomes a
fairly expensive system, but just think, at least it's only 30-year-old
technology instead of 80-year-old technology.
To be perfectly honest, it took several weeks after first engine run for me
to get up the nerve to climb in and go flying. I was very careful to stay
within gliding distance of the runway for the first several hours. I just
didn't fully understand all that was going on (still don't) and was nervous
about being the test pilot for a new system. I have done first flights
before, but never with a system that had never flown in this configuration
before (at least that I am aware of).
The setup was, honestly, a little disappointing. Rob has been fairly
available, usually with a call back after leaving a voicemail. I know this
system has run on a test stand on more than one occasion, and honestly there
were a TON of settings that I had to put in from a spreadsheet that should
have been put in at the factory. It was not a mystery that this was going in
a -10, so the 300 pages of settings should have been preset. After getting
them going and doing the ground testing to setup more accurate fuel mapping,
I got to the point where I was willing to take to the skies.
Most of the above has been fairly negative, but I think a lot of it is
plowing new ground and the time we have spent on this one should help others
down the road. I now have 19.8 hours on the system, and it has not missed a
single beat in flight. There have been some issues in starting and things
like that, but we are figuring out what works. I have not taken the time to
tweak all of the fuel maps and settings, but we have things mostly setup and
I have been very impressed with the way it has operated so far. Up until the
last few hours, I have still told people, "the jury is still out," but I am
getting much closer to a verdict now. It took this long for me to get to the
point of saying, "I would climb in and fly it to the Bahamas," or "I would
feel comfortable putting my kids in it and flying to Kansas."
Some things different about the system and the way the engine runs are the
following:
1. I can run this engine as low as 400 rpm and it is smooth. I have never
run an IO-540 lower than 750-850 rpm because it shakes and shudders. It must
be a combination of the variable timing and the fact that the fuel is
electronically injected into the intakes for each cylinder, so at low rpm
all cylinders are still getting the right amount of fuel.
2. I have done some extensive leaning in flight and have yet to get to the
point where the engine stumbles or starts to miss. This is probably related
to the same as #1, but it can run amazingly lean in flight and still run
smooth. Yes, at a point you start loosing enough power that you give up a
lot of speed, but I truly don't think I have seen fuel flows as low in a
standard -540 as I have seen in this one, at the same MAP and RPM settings.
3. There truly is no such thing as a hot start issue. I know, you can tell
me until you are blue in the face that you have a perfect system that works
every time and you never have a problem with hot starts. I have flown
probably 20 different RV-10's and many more than that different fuel
injected engines, and the hot start is more difficult than a cold start. I
have a system that works most of the time, but I have yet to see a system
that consistently requires no more cranking than a cold start. The EFII
starts hot exactly the same as it starts cold, if not a little better. Since
so much fuel is being pumped back to the tank, any time your master is on
you have cool fuel in the system.
4. While you can use the mixture knob (potentiometer mounted on the panel)
to adjust your AFR (Air Fuel Ratio), there is truly much less mixture
adjustment as altitude changes as long as power setting doesn't. I know I
have said recently, "if you think you won't be touching the mixture control,
you are mistaken," or something along those lines. However, as you get
things setup more, once you get setup in cruise with your MAP, RPM and AFR
where you want them, you really can fly the rest of your flight that
way...INCLUDING THE DESCENT. This is something that really stands out to me.
Let's say I am flying along at 12,500 feet at 18" MAP, 2,300 RPM and AFR of
16.7. I can descend to pattern altitude with nothing to touch except the
throttle knob. The governor keeps the prop at 2,300 RPM and the EFII keeps
the AFR at 16.7 (more or less, but close). With a standard injection system,
I have to keep adding mixture the whole way down. I usually find myself
going to the rich side of pe!
ak as I descend simply so I don't have to adjust the mixture as often. When
I see the EGT's start to climb towards peak, I richen up a bit more. If I
don't do this and I don't stay on it, I end up getting so lean that the
plane really accelerates when I add mixture. With the EFII, you really don't
have to touch anything until you are on final, when you are preparing the
mixture knob and the prop control for a go-around if you need one.
Final thoughts:
1. Would I recommend the EFII system to other people building RV-10's? That
depends. Some people just want to fly. They want to climb in and go
somewhere and not have to think about it. For them I would say, go with mags
and a Bendix, Silverhawk or AFP injection system and enjoy. For those who
want to do the tweaking and testing to get a little better performance or
better economy, then this just might be the system for you.
2. Doesn't useable fuel decrease because you are dumping so much fuel back
in the tank and could start sucking air at a higher fuel level? I burned a
tank down until I saw 0 on the Dynon and it took 29.5 gallons to fill back
up. I didn't wait until it missed, but it was running solid up to that
point. I doubt there is more than a quart of difference in useable fuel, if
that much.
3. Would I put my wife and/or children in it? I have already answered this,
but the true answer is, "not all of them at the same time." :) There are too
many of them. Yes, I would put my loved ones in it.
4. Does it truly perform better than a standard system? Honestly, I don't
know, but it sure seems like it does. Without quoting a lot of numbers and
comparing, I think it does perform a little better, and I have not gotten
very deep at all into the tweaking to make it even better yet.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFII - the jury is coming in |
I am going thru this exact same thing and have the same experiences that Jes
se is stating. I was told by Robert that once tuned, it should be a 1 GPH sa
vings over a standard system during cruise.
Jesse, where did you put your wide band O2 sensor? Robert was saying to put i
t in rear of the #4 cylinder 4 inches below the flange. He says that he has 4
00+ hrs on his system with no lead fowling and expects to get many many more
based on the performance others have seen. He also stated that the O2 senso
r will begin to be sluggish to change when it's going out.
Glad to hear you are enjoying the system.
Justin
> On May 5, 2015, at 18:52, Danny Riggs wrote:
>
> Thanks for the honest and interesting answer. Not what I was really expect
ing from your previous posts!=C3=B0=C5=B8=CB=9C=C6=92
> What I'd really like to know is if there is any fuel savings over say a Be
ndix FI. It would seem that the fuel efficiency in climb and descent might s
ave as much as a half to one gallon per hour. Any thoughts??
>
>
> > From: jesse(at)saintaviation.com
> > Subject: RV10-List: EFII - the jury is coming in
> > Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 22:20:10 -0400
> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> >
> >
> > Well, I think it's about time that I post a few of my experiences with t
he EFII system (dual ignition and injection) in the RV-10. I do believe N930
M is the first RV-10, and possibly the first 6-cylinder engine, to be flying
with the full EFII system. I now have 20 hours in it and feel like I should
share my experiences and thoughts on it. I have talked to several people wh
o have shown interest or who are planning to install it in their -10's, so t
his is mainly for those people, or those who may be on the fence.
> >
> > First of all, it is a system that required, IMHO, a fair bit more planni
ng than a standard engine with mags and mechanical fuel injection. Even with
electronic ignition on one or both sides. I have had a few misgivings of fl
ying -10's with dual lightspeeds, but that didn't last very long. I am actua
lly very much looking forward to flying with the P-mag if/when they ever act
ually start delivering them. With dual electronic ignition and electronic in
jection, though, it mecomes much more serious. You really should have dual b
atteries, at at least dual contactors, if not full dual busses. You really s
hould have dual alternators, or at least it's a very good idea. You need dua
l fuel pumps because there is no engine-driven pump. if any of these systems
aren't redundant and the only one fails, you either are immediately a glide
r or shortly will be. I know that the battery can keep you going for a while
if the alternator fails, but I'm not about to test how long that is. I also
thin!
> > k it's very important to have dual ECU's, one controlling each ignition a
nd each can separately control the injection system. I know this becomes a f
airly expensive system, but just think, at least it's only 30-year-old techn
ology instead of 80-year-old technology.
> >
> > To be perfectly honest, it took several weeks after first engine run for
me to get up the nerve to climb in and go flying. I was very careful to sta
y within gliding distance of the runway for the first several hours. I just d
idn't fully understand all that was going on (still don't) and was nervous a
bout being the test pilot for a new system. I have done first flights before
, but never with a system that had never flown in this configuration before (
at least that I am aware of).
> >
> > The setup was, honestly, a little disappointing. Rob has been fairly ava
ilable, usually with a call back after leaving a voicemail. I know this syst
em has run on a test stand on more than one occasion, and honestly there wer
e a TON of settings that I had to put in from a spreadsheet that should have
been put in at the factory. It was not a mystery that this was going in a -
10, so the 300 pages of settings should have been preset. After getting them
going and doing the ground testing to setup more accurate fuel mapping, I g
ot to the point where I was willing to take to the skies.
> >
> > Most of the above has been fairly negative, but I think a lot of it is p
lowing new ground and the time we have spent on this one should help others d
own the road. I now have 19.8 hours on the system, and it has not missed a s
ingle beat in flight. There have been some issues in starting and things lik
e that, but we are figuring out what works. I have not taken the time to twe
ak all of the fuel maps and settings, but we have things mostly setup and I h
ave been very impressed with the way it has operated so far. Up until the la
st few hours, I have still told people, "the jury is still out," but I am ge
tting much closer to a verdict now. It took this long for me to get to the p
oint of saying, "I would climb in and fly it to the Bahamas," or "I would fe
el comfortable putting my kids in it and flying to Kansas."
> >
> > Some things different about the system and the way the engine runs are t
he following:
> > 1. I can run this engine as low as 400 rpm and it is smooth. I have neve
r run an IO-540 lower than 750-850 rpm because it shakes and shudders. It mu
st be a combination of the variable timing and the fact that the fuel is ele
ctronically injected into the intakes for each cylinder, so at low rpm all c
ylinders are still getting the right amount of fuel.
> > 2. I have done some extensive leaning in flight and have yet to get to t
he point where the engine stumbles or starts to miss. This is probably relat
ed to the same as #1, but it can run amazingly lean in flight and still run s
mooth. Yes, at a point you start loosing enough power that you give up a lot
of speed, but I truly don't think I have seen fuel flows as low in a standa
rd -540 as I have seen in this one, at the same MAP and RPM settings.
> > 3. There truly is no such thing as a hot start issue. I know, you can te
ll me until you are blue in the face that you have a perfect system that wor
ks every time and you never have a problem with hot starts. I have flown pro
bably 20 different RV-10's and many more than that different fuel injected e
ngines, and the hot start is more difficult than a cold start. I have a syst
em that works most of the time, but I have yet to see a system that consiste
ntly requires no more cranking than a cold start. The EFII starts hot exactl
y the same as it starts cold, if not a little better. Since so much fuel is b
eing pumped back to the tank, any time your master is on you have cool fuel i
n the system.
> > 4. While you can use the mixture knob (potentiometer mounted on the pane
l) to adjust your AFR (Air Fuel Ratio), there is truly much less mixture adj
ustment as altitude changes as long as power setting doesn't. I know I have s
aid recently, "if you think you won't be touching the mixture control, you a
re mistaken," or something along those lines. However, as you get things set
up more, once you get setup in cruise with your MAP, RPM and AFR where you w
ant them, you really can fly the rest of your flight that way...INCLUDING TH
E DESCENT. This is something that really stands out to me. Let's say I am fl
ying along at 12,500 feet at 18" MAP, 2,300 RPM and AFR of 16.7. I can desce
nd to pattern altitude with nothing to touch except the throttle knob. The g
overnor keeps the prop at 2,300 RPM and the EFII keeps the AFR at 16.7 (more
or less, but close). With a standard injection system, I have to keep addin
g mixture the whole way down. I usually find myself going to the rich side o
f pe!
> > ak as I descend simply so I don't have to adjust the mixture as often. W
hen I see the EGT's start to climb towards peak, I richen up a bit more. If I
don't do this and I don't stay on it, I end up getting so lean that the pla
ne really accelerates when I add mixture. With the EFII, you really don't ha
ve to touch anything until you are on final, when you are preparing the mixt
ure knob and the prop control for a go-around if you need one.
> >
> > Final thoughts:
> > 1. Would I recommend the EFII system to other people building RV-10's? T
hat depends. Some people just want to fly. They want to climb in and go some
where and not have to think about it. For them I would say, go with mags and
a Bendix, Silverhawk or AFP injection system and enjoy. For those who want t
o do the tweaking and testing to get a little better performance or better e
conomy, then this just might be the system for you.
> > 2. Doesn't useable fuel decrease because you are dumping so much fuel ba
ck in the tank and could start sucking air at a higher fuel level? I burned a
tank down until I saw 0 on the Dynon and it took 29.5 gallons to fill back u
p. I didn't wait until it missed, but it was running solid up to that point.
I doubt there is more than a quart of difference in useable fuel, if that m
uch.
> > 3. Would I put my wife and/or children in it? I have already answered th
is, but the true answer is, "not all of them at the same time." :) There are
too many of them. Yes, I would put my loved ones in it.
> > 4. Does it truly perform better than a standard system? Honestly, I don'
t know, but it sure seems like it does. Without quoting a lot of numbers and
comparing, I think it does perform a little better, and I have not gotten v
ery deep at all into the tweaking to make it even better yet.
> >
> > Jesse Saint
> > Saint Aviation, Inc.
> > 352-427-0285
> > jesse(at)saintaviation.com
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
> >
> >
> >
> )=C2=AD=C3=C3=9F=C2=A2{l=B97=C2=B6r=B0h=C2=AFM4=C3=93M=1Fi=C3
=87=C5=93=C2=A2=C3=C3=A2z=C2=B9=C3=9E=C3=81=C3=8A.=C2=AE'=C2=ABN=17
=98W]=0B=C5-=C3=8BD=84=A2=C2=A8=C2=A5=16=C5-=C3=AE=84=A2K=1E=C2=B6
=17=C5=92j=C3=9A=C3=A8=C5=BE',.+-=15=C3=C2=AD=C2=BA=C2=B7=C2=AC5=C2=AB=C3
=A2=C2=81=C2=ABh=C2=AE=C3=9A=1B=C2=AE=C5=92,z=C3=98^=84=A2=C2=A9=C3=B2.+-
=C2=BA=C3=98=C2=A5=C5-=C3=98=C5=BE=C2=B2=C3=8B=C5=93=C2=AB=0B=C5-
=C3=8BT=C5=B8=C3=B4=C2=AEn=C3=87+=C5-=BAb=C2=A2p+r=18=C2=AFy'=C5=A1=C2
=AD=C3=88C=C2=A3 =C3=A5=C2=A1=C2=A7{ =C2=AC=C2=81=C2=AE=C5=92,x(Z=C2
=B4P=10>=1A-=C2=A2=C3=88Z=C2=AD=C3=C2=A7vk=C5=93-k=C5=93-
j+y=C2=A8ky=C3=B8m=C2=B6=C5=B8=C3=C3=83=0C&j=C3=9A=C3=A8=C5=BE',r=B0
=C25=C2=AB=C3=A2=C2=81=C2=ABh=C2=AD=15u=C3=90=C2=B8=C2=AC=C2=B6=1Bm=C2=A7
=C3=C3=B0=C3=83 =C5=A1=C2=B6=C2=BA'=B0=C3=8B=1C=C2=A2o=C3=8Dj
=C3=B8 j=C3=9A+E]t.+-=C3=BD=C2=A3M=13=C2=8D $=93=10=11NEC=12I=C2=A9=C5
=BE=9A=C2=B7=C5=A1=C2=B5=C3=8A'=C2=B5=C3=A9=C3=ADj[(j=C3=B6=C2=A2
=A2=C2=C3=A5z=C3=B8=C5=A1=C2=B6=17=93y=C2=B1h=C2=AE=C3=A9=C2=ACj=1A
=C3=9E~=1Bm=C2=A7=C3=C3=9F=C2=A2=C2=BB=C2=C2=B2f=C2=AD=C2=AE=B0=C3
=A2r=C3=87(=C5=A1=1Bm=C2=A7=C3=C3=9F=C2=A2=C2=BB=C2=C2=B2f=C2=AD=C2=AE
=B0=C3=A2r=C3=87(=BA=C3=B6=B9=C5-=C3=8BB=C2=A2{k=B0
=C2=BB=C2=AD=C5-=B0=C3'y=C2=B4=C2=A2=C2=B5=C3=A4=C3=A1jy2=C2=A2=C3
=A7=C3=A8=C2=AF*.=C2=AE=07=C2=A7z=C2=BA.=C2=B2=C3=8B=C2=A9=C2=C5-=C3=AD
1=C2=ABm=0E=C2=B6=C2=A5=A2=C3=A2=C3=A2=C2=B2=C3=90=1D=C5=A1)=C3=9A
-=C2=B7=C5=B8-=C3=9Bi=C3=C3=BC0=C3=82f=C2=AD=C2=AE=B0=C3=A2
r=C3=87(=BA=C3=B7(=C5=BE=C3=9A=C3=A2n=C3=ABb=C2=A2xm=C2=B6=C5=B8=C3
=C3=83=0C&j=C3=9A=C3=A8=C5=BE',r=B0=C2r=B0=C3=AD=C2=AE&=C3=AE
=C2=B6*'=C3=BD=C2=AF=C3=9B=C3=BD=C3=BA'=C2=B7=C3=BAk{=C3=B6=C3=A8w/=C3=A1=C2
=B6i
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | EFII - the jury is coming in |
I would expect at least that much fuel saving from any electronic
ignition (assuming you start with a balanced fuel injection system).
Carl (impatiently waiting for the promised June Pmag shipment)
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Justin Jones
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: EFII - the jury is coming in
I am going thru this exact same thing and have the same experiences that
Jesse is stating. I was told by Robert that once tuned, it should be a 1
GPH savings over a standard system during cruise.
Jesse, where did you put your wide band O2 sensor? Robert was saying to
put it in rear of the #4 cylinder 4 inches below the flange. He says
that he has 400+ hrs on his system with no lead fowling and expects to
get many many more based on the performance others have seen. He also
stated that the O2 sensor will begin to be sluggish to change when it's
going out.
Glad to hear you are enjoying the system.
Justin
On May 5, 2015, at 18:52, Danny Riggs wrote:
Thanks for the honest and interesting answer. Not what I was really
expecting from your previous posts!=C3=B0=C5=B8=CB=9C=C6=92
What I'd really like to know is if there is any fuel savings over say a
Bendix FI. It would seem that the fuel efficiency in climb and descent
might save as much as a half to one gallon per hour. Any thoughts??
> From: jesse(at)saintaviation.com
> Subject: RV10-List: EFII - the jury is coming in
> Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 22:20:10 -0400
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> Well, I think it's about time that I post a few of my experiences with
the EFII system (dual ignition and injection) in the RV-10. I do believe
N930M is the first RV-10, and possibly the first 6-cylinder engine, to
be flying with the full EFII system. I now have 20 hours in it and feel
like I should share my experiences and thoughts on it. I have talked to
several people who have shown interest or who are planning to install it
in their -10's, so this is mainly for those people, or those who may be
on the fence.
>
> First of all, it is a system that required, IMHO, a fair bit more
planning than a standard engine with mags and mechanical fuel injection.
Even with electronic ignition on one or both sides. I have had a few
misgivings of flying -10's with dual lightspeeds, but that didn't last
very long. I am actually very much looking forward to flying with the
P-mag if/when they ever actually start delivering them. With dual
electronic ignition and electronic injection, though, it mecomes much
more serious. You really should have dual batteries, at at least dual
contactors, if not full dual busses. You really should have dual
alternators, or at least it's a very good idea. You need dual fuel pumps
because there is no engine-driven pump. if any of these systems aren't
redundant and the only one fails, you either are immediately a glider or
shortly will be. I know that the battery can keep you going for a while
if the alternator fails, but I'm not about to test how long that is. I
also thin!
> k it's very important to have dual ECU's, one controlling each
ignition and each can separately control the injection system. I know
this becomes a fairly expensive system, but just think, at least it's
only 30-year-old technology instead of 80-year-old technology.
>
> To be perfectly honest, it took several weeks after first engine run
for me to get up the nerve to climb in and go flying. I was very careful
to stay within gliding distance of the runway for the first several
hours. I just didn't fully understand all that was going on (still
don't) and was nervous about being the test pilot for a new system. I
have done first flights before, but never with a system that had never
flown in this configuration before (at least that I am aware of).
>
> The setup was, honestly, a little disappointing. Rob has been fairly
available, usually with a call back after leaving a voicemail. I know
this system has run on a test stand on more than one occasion, and
honestly there were a TON of settings that I had to put in from a
spreadsheet that should have been put in at the factory. It was not a
mystery that this was going in a -10, so the 300 pages of settings
should have been preset. After getting them going and doing the ground
testing to setup more accurate fuel mapping, I got to the point where I
was willing to take to the skies.
>
> Most of the above has been fairly negative, but I think a lot of it is
plowing new ground and the time we have spent on this one should help
others down the road. I now have 19.8 hours on the system, and it has
not missed a single beat in flight. There have been some issues in
starting and things like that, but we are figuring out what works. I
have not taken the time to tweak all of the fuel maps and settings, but
we have things mostly setup and I have been very impressed with the way
it has operated so far. Up until the last few hours, I have still told
people, "the jury is still out," but I am getting much closer to a
verdict now. It took this long for me to get to the point of saying, "I
would climb in and fly it to the Bahamas," or "I would feel comfortable
putting my kids in it and flying to Kansas."
>
> Some things different about the system and the way the engine runs are
the following:
> 1. I can run this engine as low as 400 rpm and it is smooth. I have
never run an IO-540 lower than 750-850 rpm because it shakes and
shudders. It must be a combination of the variable timing and the fact
that the fuel is electronically injected into the intakes for each
cylinder, so at low rpm all cylinders are still getting the right amount
of fuel.
> 2. I have done some extensive leaning in flight and have yet to get to
the point where the engine stumbles or starts to miss. This is probably
related to the same as #1, but it can run amazingly lean in flight and
still run smooth. Yes, at a point you start loosing enough power that
you give up a lot of speed, but I truly don't think I have seen fuel
flows as low in a standard -540 as I have seen in this one, at the same
MAP and RPM settings.
> 3. There truly is no such thing as a hot start issue. I know, you can
tell me until you are blue in the face that you have a perfect system
that works every time and you never have a problem with hot starts. I
have flown probably 20 different RV-10's and many more than that
different fuel injected engines, and the hot start is more difficult
than a cold start. I have a system that works most of the time, but I
have yet to see a system that consistently requires no more cranking
than a cold start. The EFII starts hot exactly the same as it starts
cold, if not a little better. Since so much fuel is being pumped back to
the tank, any time your master is on you have cool fuel in the system.
> 4. While you can use the mixture knob (potentiometer mounted on the
panel) to adjust your AFR (Air Fuel Ratio), there is truly much less
mixture adjustment as altitude changes as long as power setting doesn't.
I know I have said recently, "if you think you won't be touching the
mixture control, you are mistaken," or something along those lines.
However, as you get things setup more, once you get setup in cruise with
your MAP, RPM and AFR where you want them, you really can fly the rest
of your flight that way...INCLUDING THE DESCENT. This is something that
really stands out to me. Let's say I am flying along at 12,500 feet at
18" MAP, 2,300 RPM and AFR of 16.7. I can descend to pattern altitude
with nothing to touch except the throttle knob. The governor keeps the
prop at 2,300 RPM and the EFII keeps the AFR at 16.7 (more or less, but
close). With a standard injection system, I have to keep adding mixture
the whole way down. I usually find myself going to the rich side of pe!
> ak as I descend simply so I don't have to adjust the mixture as often.
When I see the EGT's start to climb towards peak, I richen up a bit
more. If I don't do this and I don't stay on it, I end up getting so
lean that the plane really accelerates when I add mixture. With the
EFII, you really don't have to touch anything until you are on final,
when you are preparing the mixture knob and the prop control for a
go-around if you need one.
>
> Final thoughts:
> 1. Would I recommend the EFII system to other people building RV-10's?
That depends. Some people just want to fly. They want to climb in and go
somewhere and not have to think about it. For them I would say, go with
mags and a Bendix, Silverhawk or AFP injection system and enjoy. For
those who want to do the tweaking and testing to get a little better
performance or better economy, then this just might be the system for
you.
> 2. Doesn't useable fuel decrease because you are dumping so much fuel
back in the tank and could start sucking air at a higher fuel level? I
burned a tank down until I saw 0 on the Dynon and it took 29.5 gallons
to fill back up. I didn't wait until it missed, but it was running solid
up to that point. I doubt there is more than a quart of difference in
useable fuel, if that much.
> 3. Would I put my wife and/or children in it? I have already answered
this, but the true answer is, "not all of them at the same time." :)
There are too many of them. Yes, I would put my loved ones in it.
> 4. Does it truly perform better than a standard system? Honestly, I
don't know, but it sure seems like it does. Without quoting a lot of
numbers and comparing, I think it does perform a little better, and I
have not gotten very deep at all into the tweaking to make it even
better yet.
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> 352-427-0285
>
jesse(at)saintaviation.com<=================
=============p://www.matronics.com/contribution
">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
)=C2=AD=C3=C3=9F=C2=A2{l=B97=C2=B6r=B0h=C2=AFM4=C3=93M=C2=AD
i=C3=87=C5=93=C2=A2=C3=C3=A2z=C2=B9=C3=9E=C3=81=C3=8A.=C2=AE'=C2=ABN
=98W]
=C5-=C3=8BD=84=A2=C2=A8=C2=A5=C5-=C3=AE=84=A2K=91=C2=B6=C5
=92j=C3=9A=C3=A8=C5=BE',.+-=15=C3=C2=AD=C2=BA=C2=B7=C2=AC5=C2=AB=C3=A2
=C2=81=C2=ABh=C2=AE=C3=9A=C2=AE=C5=92,z=C3=98^=84=A2=C2=A9=C3=B2.+-=C2
=BA=C3=98=C2=A5=C5-=C3=98=C5=BE=C2=B2=C3=8B=C5=93=C2=AB
=C5-=C3=8BT=C5=B8=C3=B4=C2=AEn=C3=87+=C5-=BAb=C2=A2p+r=C2=AFy'=C5
=A1=C2=AD=C3=88C=C2=A3 =C3=A5=C2=A1=C2=A7{
=C2=AC=C2=81=C2=AE=C5=92,x(Z=C2=B4P>-=C2=A2=C3=88Z=C2=AD=C3=C2=A7vk=C5
=93-k=C5=93-j+y=C2=A8ky=C3=B8m=C2=B6=C5=B8=C3=C3=83
&j=C3=9A=C3=A8=C5=BE',r=B0=C25=C2=AB=C3=A2=C2=81=C2=ABh=C2=AD=15
u=C3=90=C2=B8=C2=AC=C2=B6m=C2=A7=C3=C3=B0=C3=83
=C5=A1=C2=B6=C2=BA'=B0=C3=8B=1C=C2=A2o=C3=8Dj=C3=B8
j=C3=9A+E]t.+-=C3=BD=C2=A3M=13=C2=8D
$=93=11NEC=12I=C2=A9=C5=BE=9A=C2=B7=C5=A1=C2=B5=C3=8A'=C2=B5=C3
=A9=C3=ADj[(j=C3=B6=C2=A2=A2=C2=C3=A5z=C3=B8=C5=A1=C2=B6=93
y=C2=B1h=C2=AE=C3=A9=C2=ACj=C3=9E~m=C2=A7=C3=C3=9F=C2=A2=C2=BB=C2=C2
=B2f=C2=AD=C2=AE=B0=C3=A2r=C3=87(=C5=A1m=C2=A7=C3=C3=9F=C2=A2=C2
=BB=C2=C2=B2f=C2=AD=C2=AE=B0=C3=A2r=C3=87(=BA=C3=B6=B9
=C5-=C3=8BB=C2=A2{k=B0=C2=BB=C2=AD=C5-=B0=C3'y=C2=B4=C2
=A2=C2=B5=C3=A4=C3=A1jy2=C2=A2=C3=A7=C3=A8=C2=AF*.=C2=AE=C2=A7z=C2=BA.=C2
=B2=C3=8B=C2=A9=C2=C5-=C3=AD1=C2=ABm
=C2=B6=C2=A5=A2=C3=A2=C3=A2=C2=B2=C3=90=C5=A1)=C3=9A-=C2=B7
=C5=B8-=C3=9Bi=C3=C3=BC0=C3=82f=C2=AD=C2=AE=B0=C3=A2r=C3
=87(=BA=C3=B7(=C5=BE=C3=9A=C3=A2n=C3=ABb=C2=A2xm=C2=B6=C5=B8=C3=C3
=83
&j=C3=9A=C3=A8=C5=BE',r=B0=C2r=B0=C3=AD=C2=AE&=C3=AE=C2=B6
*'=C3=BD=C2=AF=C3=9B=C3=BD=C3=BA'=C2=B7=C3=BAk{=C3=B6=C3=A8w/=C3=A1=C2=B6
i
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFII - the jury is coming in |
I am seeing 165ktas at 12,500 burning 10gph. AFR was 16.5 or so. 19.4MAP and
2400RPM.
I think our O2 sensor is welded onto the riser off Cyl 6, maybe 6" down.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On May 6, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Justin Jones wro
te:
>
> I am going thru this exact same thing and have the same experiences that J
esse is stating. I was told by Robert that once tuned, it should be a 1 GPH s
avings over a standard system during cruise.
>
> Jesse, where did you put your wide band O2 sensor? Robert was saying to pu
t it in rear of the #4 cylinder 4 inches below the flange. He says that he h
as 400+ hrs on his system with no lead fowling and expects to get many many m
ore based on the performance others have seen. He also stated that the O2 se
nsor will begin to be sluggish to change when it's going out.
>
> Glad to hear you are enjoying the system.
>
> Justin
>
>
>> On May 5, 2015, at 18:52, Danny Riggs wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the honest and interesting answer. Not what I was really expec
ting from your previous posts!=C3=B0=C5=B8=CB=9C=C6=92
>> What I'd really like to know is if there is any fuel savings over say a B
endix FI. It would seem that the fuel efficiency in climb and descent might s
ave as much as a half to one gallon per hour. Any thoughts??
>>
>>
>> > From: jesse(at)saintaviation.com
>> > Subject: RV10-List: EFII - the jury is coming in
>> > Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 22:20:10 -0400
>> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> >
>> >
>> > Well, I think it's about time that I post a few of my experiences with t
he EFII system (dual ignition and injection) in the RV-10. I do believe N930
M is the first RV-10, and possibly the first 6-cylinder engine, to be flying
with the full EFII system. I now have 20 hours in it and feel like I should
share my experiences and thoughts on it. I have talked to several people wh
o have shown interest or who are planning to install it in their -10's, so t
his is mainly for those people, or those who may be on the fence.
>> >
>> > First of all, it is a system that required, IMHO, a fair bit more plann
ing than a standard engine with mags and mechanical fuel injection. Even wit
h electronic ignition on one or both sides. I have had a few misgivings of f
lying -10's with dual lightspeeds, but that didn't last very long. I am actu
ally very much looking forward to flying with the P-mag if/when they ever ac
tually start delivering them. With dual electronic ignition and electronic i
njection, though, it mecomes much more serious. You really should have dual b
atteries, at at least dual contactors, if not full dual busses. You really s
hould have dual alternators, or at least it's a very good idea. You need dua
l fuel pumps because there is no engine-driven pump. if any of these systems
aren't redundant and the only one fails, you either are immediately a glide
r or shortly will be. I know that the battery can keep you going for a while
if the alternator fails, but I'm not about to test how long that is. I also
thin!
>> > k it's very important to have dual ECU's, one controlling each ignition
and each can separately control the injection system. I know this becomes a
fairly expensive system, but just think, at least it's only 30-year-old tec
hnology instead of 80-year-old technology.
>> >
>> > To be perfectly honest, it took several weeks after first engine run fo
r me to get up the nerve to climb in and go flying. I was very careful to st
ay within gliding distance of the runway for the first several hours. I just
didn't fully understand all that was going on (still don't) and was nervous
about being the test pilot for a new system. I have done first flights befo
re, but never with a system that had never flown in this configuration befor
e (at least that I am aware of).
>> >
>> > The setup was, honestly, a little disappointing. Rob has been fairly av
ailable, usually with a call back after leaving a voicemail. I know this sys
tem has run on a test stand on more than one occasion, and honestly there we
re a TON of settings that I had to put in from a spreadsheet that should hav
e been put in at the factory. It was not a mystery that this was going in a -
10, so the 300 pages of settings should have been preset. After getting them
going and doing the ground testing to setup more accurate fuel mapping, I g
ot to the point where I was willing to take to the skies.
>> >
>> > Most of the above has been fairly negative, but I think a lot of it is p
lowing new ground and the time we have spent on this one should help others d
own the road. I now have 19.8 hours on the system, and it has not missed a s
ingle beat in flight. There have been some issues in starting and things lik
e that, but we are figuring out what works. I have not taken the time to twe
ak all of the fuel maps and settings, but we have things mostly setup and I h
ave been very impressed with the way it has operated so far. Up until the la
st few hours, I have still told people, "the jury is still out," but I am ge
tting much closer to a verdict now. It took this long for me to get to the p
oint of saying, "I would climb in and fly it to the Bahamas," or "I would fe
el comfortable putting my kids in it and flying to Kansas."
>> >
>> > Some things different about the system and the way the engine runs are t
he following:
>> > 1. I can run this engine as low as 400 rpm and it is smooth. I have nev
er run an IO-540 lower than 750-850 rpm because it shakes and shudders. It m
ust be a combination of the variable timing and the fact that the fuel is el
ectronically injected into the intakes for each cylinder, so at low rpm all c
ylinders are still getting the right amount of fuel.
>> > 2. I have done some extensive leaning in flight and have yet to get to t
he point where the engine stumbles or starts to miss. This is probably relat
ed to the same as #1, but it can run amazingly lean in flight and still run s
mooth. Yes, at a point you start loosing enough power that you give up a lot
of speed, but I truly don't think I have seen fuel flows as low in a standa
rd -540 as I have seen in this one, at the same MAP and RPM settings.
>> > 3. There truly is no such thing as a hot start issue. I know, you can t
ell me until you are blue in the face that you have a perfect system that wo
rks every time and you never have a problem with hot starts. I have flown pr
obably 20 different RV-10's and many more than that different fuel injected e
ngines, and the hot start is more difficult than a cold start. I have a syst
em that works most of the time, but I have yet to see a system that consiste
ntly requires no more cranking than a cold start. The EFII starts hot exactl
y the same as it starts cold, if not a little better. Since so much fuel is b
eing pumped back to the tank, any time your master is on you have cool fuel i
n the system.
>> > 4. While you can use the mixture knob (potentiometer mounted on the pan
el) to adjust your AFR (Air Fuel Ratio), there is truly much less mixture ad
justment as altitude changes as long as power setting doesn't. I know I have
said recently, "if you think you won't be touching the mixture control, you
are mistaken," or something along those lines. However, as you get things s
etup more, once you get setup in cruise with your MAP, RPM and AFR where you
want them, you really can fly the rest of your flight that way...INCLUDING T
HE DESCENT. This is something that really stands out to me. Let's say I am f
lying along at 12,500 feet at 18" MAP, 2,300 RPM and AFR of 16.7. I can desc
end to pattern altitude with nothing to touch except the throttle knob. The g
overnor keeps the prop at 2,300 RPM and the EFII keeps the AFR at 16.7 (more
or less, but close). With a standard injection system, I have to keep addin
g mixture the whole way down. I usually find myself going to the rich side o
f pe!
>> > ak as I descend simply so I don't have to adjust the mixture as often. W
hen I see the EGT's start to climb towards peak, I richen up a bit more. If I
don't do this and I don't stay on it, I end up getting so lean that the pla
ne really accelerates when I add mixture. With the EFII, you really don't ha
ve to touch anything until you are on final, when you are preparing the mixt
ure knob and the prop control for a go-around if you need one.
>> >
>> > Final thoughts:
>> > 1. Would I recommend the EFII system to other people building RV-10's? T
hat depends. Some people just want to fly. They want to climb in and go some
where and not have to think about it. For them I would say, go with mags and
a Bendix, Silverhawk or AFP injection system and enjoy. For those who want t
o do the tweaking and testing to get a little better performance or better e
conomy, then this just might be the system for you.
>> > 2. Doesn't useable fuel decrease because you are dumping so much fuel b
ack in the tank and could start sucking air at a higher fuel level? I burned
a tank down until I saw 0 on the Dynon and it took 29.5 gallons to fill bac
k up. I didn't wait until it missed, but it was running solid up to that poi
nt. I doubt there is more than a quart of difference in useable fuel, if tha
t much.
>> > 3. Would I put my wife and/or children in it? I have already answered t
his, but the true answer is, "not all of them at the same time." :) There ar
e too many of them. Yes, I would put my loved ones in it.
>> > 4. Does it truly perform better than a standard system? Honestly, I don
't know, but it sure seems like it does. Without quoting a lot of numbers an
d comparing, I think it does perform a little better, and I have not gotten v
ery deep at all into the tweaking to make it even better yet.
>> >
>> > Jesse Saint
>> > Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> > 352-427-0285
>> > jesse(at)saintaviation.com<================
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www
.matronics.com/contribution>
>> >
>> >
>> )=C2=AD=C3=C3=9F=C2=A2{l=B97=C2=B6r=B0h=C2=AFM4=C3=93M=1Fi
=C3=87=C5=93=C2=A2=C3=C3=A2z=C2=B9=C3=9E=C3=81=C3=8A.=C2=AE'=C2=ABN=17
=98W]=0B=C5-=C3=8BD=84=A2=C2=A8=C2=A5=16=C5-=C3=AE=84=A2K=1E=C2
=B6=17=C5=92j=C3=9A=C3=A8=C5=BE',.+-=15=C3=C2=AD=C2=BA=C2=B7=C2=AC5=C2=AB
=C3=A2=C2=81=C2=ABh=C2=AE=C3=9A=1B=C2=AE=C5=92,z=C3=98^=84=A2=C2=A9=C3=B2
.+-=C2=BA=C3=98=C2=A5=C5-=C3=98=C5=BE=C2=B2=C3=8B=C5=93=C2=AB=0B=C5
-=C3=8BT=C5=B8=C3=B4=C2=AEn=C3=87+=C5-=BAb=C2=A2p+r=18=C2=AFy'=C5=A1
=C2=AD=C3=88C=C2=A3 =C3=A5=C2=A1=C2=A7{ =C2=AC=C2=81=C2=AE=C5=92,x(Z=C2
=B4P=10>=1A-=C2=A2=C3=88Z=C2=AD=C3=C2=A7vk=C5=93-k=C5=93-
j+y=C2=A8ky=C3=B8m=C2=B6=C5=B8=C3=C3=83=0C&j=C3=9A=C3=A8=C5=BE',r=B0
=C25=C2=AB=C3=A2=C2=81=C2=ABh=C2=AD=15u=C3=90=C2=B8=C2=AC=C2=B6=1Bm=C2=A7
=C3=C3=B0=C3=83 =C5=A1=C2=B6=C2=BA'=B0=C3=8B=1C=C2=A2o=C3=8Dj
=C3=B8 j=C3=9A+E]t.+-=C3=BD=C2=A3M=13=C2=8D $=93=10=11NEC=12I=C2=A9=C5
=BE=9A=C2=B7=C5=A1=C2=B5=C3=8A'=C2=B5=C3=A9=C3=ADj[(j=C3=B6=C2=A2
=A2=C2=C3=A5z=C3=B8=C5=A1=C2=B6=17=93y=C2=B1h=C2=AE=C3=A9=C2=ACj=1A
=C3=9E~=1Bm=C2=A7=C3=C3=9F=C2=A2=C2=BB=C2=C2=B2f=C2=AD=C2=AE=B0=C3
=A2r=C3=87(=C5=A1=1Bm=C2=A7=C3=C3=9F=C2=A2=C2=BB=C2=C2=B2f=C2=AD=C2=AE
=B0=C3=A2r=C3=87(=BA=C3=B6=B9=C5-=C3=8BB=C2=A2{k=B0
=C2=BB=C2=AD=C5-=B0=C3'y=C2=B4=C2=A2=C2=B5=C3=A4=C3=A1jy2=C2=A2=C3
=A7=C3=A8=C2=AF*.=C2=AE=07=C2=A7z=C2=BA.=C2=B2=C3=8B=C2=A9=C2=C5-=C3=AD
1=C2=ABm=0E=C2=B6=C2=A5=A2=C3=A2=C3=A2=C2=B2=C3=90=1D=C5=A1)=C3=9A
-=C2=B7=C5=B8-=C3=9Bi=C3=C3=BC0=C3=82f=C2=AD=C2=AE=B0=C3=A2
r=C3=87(=BA=C3=B7(=C5=BE=C3=9A=C3=A2n=C3=ABb=C2=A2xm=C2=B6=C5=B8=C3
=C3=83=0C&j=C3=9A=C3=A8=C5=BE',r=B0=C2r=B0=C3=AD=C2=AE&=C3=AE
=C2=B6*'=C3=BD=C2=AF=C3=9B=C3=BD=C3=BA'=C2=B7=C3=BAk{=C3=B6=C3=A8w/=C3=A1=C2
=B6i
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFII - the jury is coming in |
Fwiw, at 10,500 feet, 15" and 2300 rpm, I'm cruising at 143ktas burning 8.0 g
ph.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On May 6, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Justin Jones wro
te:
>
> I am going thru this exact same thing and have the same experiences that J
esse is stating. I was told by Robert that once tuned, it should be a 1 GPH s
avings over a standard system during cruise.
>
> Jesse, where did you put your wide band O2 sensor? Robert was saying to pu
t it in rear of the #4 cylinder 4 inches below the flange. He says that he h
as 400+ hrs on his system with no lead fowling and expects to get many many m
ore based on the performance others have seen. He also stated that the O2 se
nsor will begin to be sluggish to change when it's going out.
>
> Glad to hear you are enjoying the system.
>
> Justin
>
>
>> On May 5, 2015, at 18:52, Danny Riggs wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the honest and interesting answer. Not what I was really expec
ting from your previous posts!=C3=B0=C5=B8=CB=9C=C6=92
>> What I'd really like to know is if there is any fuel savings over say a B
endix FI. It would seem that the fuel efficiency in climb and descent might s
ave as much as a half to one gallon per hour. Any thoughts??
>>
>>
>> > From: jesse(at)saintaviation.com
>> > Subject: RV10-List: EFII - the jury is coming in
>> > Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 22:20:10 -0400
>> > To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
>> >
>> >
>> > Well, I think it's about time that I post a few of my experiences with t
he EFII system (dual ignition and injection) in the RV-10. I do believe N930
M is the first RV-10, and possibly the first 6-cylinder engine, to be flying
with the full EFII system. I now have 20 hours in it and feel like I should
share my experiences and thoughts on it. I have talked to several people wh
o have shown interest or who are planning to install it in their -10's, so t
his is mainly for those people, or those who may be on the fence.
>> >
>> > First of all, it is a system that required, IMHO, a fair bit more plann
ing than a standard engine with mags and mechanical fuel injection. Even wit
h electronic ignition on one or both sides. I have had a few misgivings of f
lying -10's with dual lightspeeds, but that didn't last very long. I am actu
ally very much looking forward to flying with the P-mag if/when they ever ac
tually start delivering them. With dual electronic ignition and electronic i
njection, though, it mecomes much more serious. You really should have dual b
atteries, at at least dual contactors, if not full dual busses. You really s
hould have dual alternators, or at least it's a very good idea. You need dua
l fuel pumps because there is no engine-driven pump. if any of these systems
aren't redundant and the only one fails, you either are immediately a glide
r or shortly will be. I know that the battery can keep you going for a while
if the alternator fails, but I'm not about to test how long that is. I also
thin!
>> > k it's very important to have dual ECU's, one controlling each ignition
and each can separately control the injection system. I know this becomes a
fairly expensive system, but just think, at least it's only 30-year-old tec
hnology instead of 80-year-old technology.
>> >
>> > To be perfectly honest, it took several weeks after first engine run fo
r me to get up the nerve to climb in and go flying. I was very careful to st
ay within gliding distance of the runway for the first several hours. I just
didn't fully understand all that was going on (still don't) and was nervous
about being the test pilot for a new system. I have done first flights befo
re, but never with a system that had never flown in this configuration befor
e (at least that I am aware of).
>> >
>> > The setup was, honestly, a little disappointing. Rob has been fairly av
ailable, usually with a call back after leaving a voicemail. I know this sys
tem has run on a test stand on more than one occasion, and honestly there we
re a TON of settings that I had to put in from a spreadsheet that should hav
e been put in at the factory. It was not a mystery that this was going in a -
10, so the 300 pages of settings should have been preset. After getting them
going and doing the ground testing to setup more accurate fuel mapping, I g
ot to the point where I was willing to take to the skies.
>> >
>> > Most of the above has been fairly negative, but I think a lot of it is p
lowing new ground and the time we have spent on this one should help others d
own the road. I now have 19.8 hours on the system, and it has not missed a s
ingle beat in flight. There have been some issues in starting and things lik
e that, but we are figuring out what works. I have not taken the time to twe
ak all of the fuel maps and settings, but we have things mostly setup and I h
ave been very impressed with the way it has operated so far. Up until the la
st few hours, I have still told people, "the jury is still out," but I am ge
tting much closer to a verdict now. It took this long for me to get to the p
oint of saying, "I would climb in and fly it to the Bahamas," or "I would fe
el comfortable putting my kids in it and flying to Kansas."
>> >
>> > Some things different about the system and the way the engine runs are t
he following:
>> > 1. I can run this engine as low as 400 rpm and it is smooth. I have nev
er run an IO-540 lower than 750-850 rpm because it shakes and shudders. It m
ust be a combination of the variable timing and the fact that the fuel is el
ectronically injected into the intakes for each cylinder, so at low rpm all c
ylinders are still getting the right amount of fuel.
>> > 2. I have done some extensive leaning in flight and have yet to get to t
he point where the engine stumbles or starts to miss. This is probably relat
ed to the same as #1, but it can run amazingly lean in flight and still run s
mooth. Yes, at a point you start loosing enough power that you give up a lot
of speed, but I truly don't think I have seen fuel flows as low in a standa
rd -540 as I have seen in this one, at the same MAP and RPM settings.
>> > 3. There truly is no such thing as a hot start issue. I know, you can t
ell me until you are blue in the face that you have a perfect system that wo
rks every time and you never have a problem with hot starts. I have flown pr
obably 20 different RV-10's and many more than that different fuel injected e
ngines, and the hot start is more difficult than a cold start. I have a syst
em that works most of the time, but I have yet to see a system that consiste
ntly requires no more cranking than a cold start. The EFII starts hot exactl
y the same as it starts cold, if not a little better. Since so much fuel is b
eing pumped back to the tank, any time your master is on you have cool fuel i
n the system.
>> > 4. While you can use the mixture knob (potentiometer mounted on the pan
el) to adjust your AFR (Air Fuel Ratio), there is truly much less mixture ad
justment as altitude changes as long as power setting doesn't. I know I have
said recently, "if you think you won't be touching the mixture control, you
are mistaken," or something along those lines. However, as you get things s
etup more, once you get setup in cruise with your MAP, RPM and AFR where you
want them, you really can fly the rest of your flight that way...INCLUDING T
HE DESCENT. This is something that really stands out to me. Let's say I am f
lying along at 12,500 feet at 18" MAP, 2,300 RPM and AFR of 16.7. I can desc
end to pattern altitude with nothing to touch except the throttle knob. The g
overnor keeps the prop at 2,300 RPM and the EFII keeps the AFR at 16.7 (more
or less, but close). With a standard injection system, I have to keep addin
g mixture the whole way down. I usually find myself going to the rich side o
f pe!
>> > ak as I descend simply so I don't have to adjust the mixture as often. W
hen I see the EGT's start to climb towards peak, I richen up a bit more. If I
don't do this and I don't stay on it, I end up getting so lean that the pla
ne really accelerates when I add mixture. With the EFII, you really don't ha
ve to touch anything until you are on final, when you are preparing the mixt
ure knob and the prop control for a go-around if you need one.
>> >
>> > Final thoughts:
>> > 1. Would I recommend the EFII system to other people building RV-10's? T
hat depends. Some people just want to fly. They want to climb in and go some
where and not have to think about it. For them I would say, go with mags and
a Bendix, Silverhawk or AFP injection system and enjoy. For those who want t
o do the tweaking and testing to get a little better performance or better e
conomy, then this just might be the system for you.
>> > 2. Doesn't useable fuel decrease because you are dumping so much fuel b
ack in the tank and could start sucking air at a higher fuel level? I burned
a tank down until I saw 0 on the Dynon and it took 29.5 gallons to fill bac
k up. I didn't wait until it missed, but it was running solid up to that poi
nt. I doubt there is more than a quart of difference in useable fuel, if tha
t much.
>> > 3. Would I put my wife and/or children in it? I have already answered t
his, but the true answer is, "not all of them at the same time." :) There ar
e too many of them. Yes, I would put my loved ones in it.
>> > 4. Does it truly perform better than a standard system? Honestly, I don
't know, but it sure seems like it does. Without quoting a lot of numbers an
d comparing, I think it does perform a little better, and I have not gotten v
ery deep at all into the tweaking to make it even better yet.
>> >
>> > Jesse Saint
>> > Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> > 352-427-0285
>> > jesse(at)saintaviation.com<================
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www
.matronics.com/contribution>
>> >
>> >
>> )=C2=AD=C3=C3=9F=C2=A2{l=B97=C2=B6r=B0h=C2=AFM4=C3=93M=1Fi
=C3=87=C5=93=C2=A2=C3=C3=A2z=C2=B9=C3=9E=C3=81=C3=8A.=C2=AE'=C2=ABN=17
=98W]=0B=C5-=C3=8BD=84=A2=C2=A8=C2=A5=16=C5-=C3=AE=84=A2K=1E=C2
=B6=17=C5=92j=C3=9A=C3=A8=C5=BE',.+-=15=C3=C2=AD=C2=BA=C2=B7=C2=AC5=C2=AB
=C3=A2=C2=81=C2=ABh=C2=AE=C3=9A=1B=C2=AE=C5=92,z=C3=98^=84=A2=C2=A9=C3=B2
.+-=C2=BA=C3=98=C2=A5=C5-=C3=98=C5=BE=C2=B2=C3=8B=C5=93=C2=AB=0B=C5
-=C3=8BT=C5=B8=C3=B4=C2=AEn=C3=87+=C5-=BAb=C2=A2p+r=18=C2=AFy'=C5=A1
=C2=AD=C3=88C=C2=A3 =C3=A5=C2=A1=C2=A7{ =C2=AC=C2=81=C2=AE=C5=92,x(Z=C2
=B4P=10>=1A-=C2=A2=C3=88Z=C2=AD=C3=C2=A7vk=C5=93-k=C5=93-
j+y=C2=A8ky=C3=B8m=C2=B6=C5=B8=C3=C3=83=0C&j=C3=9A=C3=A8=C5=BE',r=B0
=C25=C2=AB=C3=A2=C2=81=C2=ABh=C2=AD=15u=C3=90=C2=B8=C2=AC=C2=B6=1Bm=C2=A7
=C3=C3=B0=C3=83 =C5=A1=C2=B6=C2=BA'=B0=C3=8B=1C=C2=A2o=C3=8Dj
=C3=B8 j=C3=9A+E]t.+-=C3=BD=C2=A3M=13=C2=8D $=93=10=11NEC=12I=C2=A9=C5
=BE=9A=C2=B7=C5=A1=C2=B5=C3=8A'=C2=B5=C3=A9=C3=ADj[(j=C3=B6=C2=A2
=A2=C2=C3=A5z=C3=B8=C5=A1=C2=B6=17=93y=C2=B1h=C2=AE=C3=A9=C2=ACj=1A
=C3=9E~=1Bm=C2=A7=C3=C3=9F=C2=A2=C2=BB=C2=C2=B2f=C2=AD=C2=AE=B0=C3
=A2r=C3=87(=C5=A1=1Bm=C2=A7=C3=C3=9F=C2=A2=C2=BB=C2=C2=B2f=C2=AD=C2=AE
=B0=C3=A2r=C3=87(=BA=C3=B6=B9=C5-=C3=8BB=C2=A2{k=B0
=C2=BB=C2=AD=C5-=B0=C3'y=C2=B4=C2=A2=C2=B5=C3=A4=C3=A1jy2=C2=A2=C3
=A7=C3=A8=C2=AF*.=C2=AE=07=C2=A7z=C2=BA.=C2=B2=C3=8B=C2=A9=C2=C5-=C3=AD
1=C2=ABm=0E=C2=B6=C2=A5=A2=C3=A2=C3=A2=C2=B2=C3=90=1D=C5=A1)=C3=9A
-=C2=B7=C5=B8-=C3=9Bi=C3=C3=BC0=C3=82f=C2=AD=C2=AE=B0=C3=A2
r=C3=87(=BA=C3=B7(=C5=BE=C3=9A=C3=A2n=C3=ABb=C2=A2xm=C2=B6=C5=B8=C3
=C3=83=0C&j=C3=9A=C3=A8=C5=BE',r=B0=C2r=B0=C3=AD=C2=AE&=C3=AE
=C2=B6*'=C3=BD=C2=AF=C3=9B=C3=BD=C3=BA'=C2=B7=C3=BAk{=C3=B6=C3=A8w/=C3=A1=C2
=B6i
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Tech in the front office |
| From: | "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Hi
For the past couple of weeks I have been working on renewing my IFR rating. In
the process I have started lusting / drooling over the IPAD my instructor used.
It had georefed plates. I on the other hand was using low tech paper. His gear
/ subscription cost beaucoup de dineros.
Being a frugal (ie miserly pilot) I am wondering what IPAD / tablet / mini PC
and subscription options others are using. I am especially interested in where
the cost / benefit sweet spot is.
Cheers
Les
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441931#441931
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Philips" <jack(at)bedfordlandings.com> |
| Subject: | Tech in the front office |
I'm using ForeFlight Pro (which is what is required with ForeFlight to get
the geo-referenced plates) with a Stratus 2 ADS-B unit. You're right - a
lot of money but how much is it worth to have such great situational
awareness, plus a backup of all flight instruments in case of a total power
failure?
Mind you, I haven't finished my -10 yet (just getting back on it after a 3
year hiatus to build a Fly-In Bed & Breakfast). My RV-10 will have an
autopilot. I'm flying IFR in a 62 year old Cessna 170, with no autopilot.
Single pilot IFR I'll take all the help money can buy.
Jack Phillips
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
40610 - Just ordered Fuselage Kit
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of kearney
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2015 10:47 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Tech in the front office
Hi
For the past couple of weeks I have been working on renewing my IFR rating.
In the process I have started lusting / drooling over the IPAD my instructor
used. It had georefed plates. I on the other hand was using low tech paper.
His gear / subscription cost beaucoup de dineros.
Being a frugal (ie miserly pilot) I am wondering what IPAD / tablet / mini
PC and subscription options others are using. I am especially interested in
where the cost / benefit sweet spot is.
Cheers
Les
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441931#441931
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tech in the front office |
It's pricey to get the equipment for Foreflight, but the subscription is not expensive.
The Stratus is great, but not required.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 9, 2015, at 11:24 AM, Jack Philips wrote:
>
>
> I'm using ForeFlight Pro (which is what is required with ForeFlight to get
> the geo-referenced plates) with a Stratus 2 ADS-B unit. You're right - a
> lot of money but how much is it worth to have such great situational
> awareness, plus a backup of all flight instruments in case of a total power
> failure?
>
> Mind you, I haven't finished my -10 yet (just getting back on it after a 3
> year hiatus to build a Fly-In Bed & Breakfast). My RV-10 will have an
> autopilot. I'm flying IFR in a 62 year old Cessna 170, with no autopilot.
> Single pilot IFR I'll take all the help money can buy.
>
> Jack Phillips
> Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
> 40610 - Just ordered Fuselage Kit
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of kearney
> Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2015 10:47 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Tech in the front office
>
>
> Hi
>
> For the past couple of weeks I have been working on renewing my IFR rating.
> In the process I have started lusting / drooling over the IPAD my instructor
> used. It had georefed plates. I on the other hand was using low tech paper.
> His gear / subscription cost beaucoup de dineros.
>
> Being a frugal (ie miserly pilot) I am wondering what IPAD / tablet / mini
> PC and subscription options others are using. I am especially interested in
> where the cost / benefit sweet spot is.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441931#441931
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tech in the front office |
It's pricey to get the equipment for Foreflight, but the subscription is not expensive.
The Stratus is great, but not required.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 9, 2015, at 11:24 AM, Jack Philips wrote:
>
>
> I'm using ForeFlight Pro (which is what is required with ForeFlight to get
> the geo-referenced plates) with a Stratus 2 ADS-B unit. You're right - a
> lot of money but how much is it worth to have such great situational
> awareness, plus a backup of all flight instruments in case of a total power
> failure?
>
> Mind you, I haven't finished my -10 yet (just getting back on it after a 3
> year hiatus to build a Fly-In Bed & Breakfast). My RV-10 will have an
> autopilot. I'm flying IFR in a 62 year old Cessna 170, with no autopilot.
> Single pilot IFR I'll take all the help money can buy.
>
> Jack Phillips
> Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
> 40610 - Just ordered Fuselage Kit
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of kearney
> Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2015 10:47 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Tech in the front office
>
>
> Hi
>
> For the past couple of weeks I have been working on renewing my IFR rating.
> In the process I have started lusting / drooling over the IPAD my instructor
> used. It had georefed plates. I on the other hand was using low tech paper.
> His gear / subscription cost beaucoup de dineros.
>
> Being a frugal (ie miserly pilot) I am wondering what IPAD / tablet / mini
> PC and subscription options others are using. I am especially interested in
> where the cost / benefit sweet spot is.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441931#441931
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Danny Riggs <jdriggs49(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Tech in the front office |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Tech in the front office |
I'm using a 10" iPad Air, 32gb, WIFI only. For the GPS feed I use the Bad
Elf GPS Pro. I have the ForeFlight basic. I got the WiFi only to avoid the
up charge for a 4G unit and monthly wireless plan charge. The WiFi only
however does not have a GPS receiver - thus the need to have the Bluetooth
connected Bad Elf GPS receiver. I note that the Bad Elf GPS receiver works
very well. I have a friend using the smaller iPad and consider that too
small.
The main reason for the ForeFlight is for IFR flight planning. I've been
flying with dual SkyView 10" screens in the panel for three years now (ADSB
in/out enabled). While I carry the iPad in the plane and have it on, I find
it a poor substitute for the SkyView. The iPad display is not as bright as
you want, and unless you have some way to mount it the iPad becomes a hassle
to manage. It is however a great back up if everything goes south. The
SkyView has geo-referenced VFR and IFR charts as well as approach plates.
Even so, normal ops is to have paper plates for the intended airport. The
SkyView provides the plates if I end up going someplace else. The
ForeFlight basic has all the approach plates for review during flight
planning.
A reason to get the ForeFlight Pro would be if you are using SkyView with
their WiFi adapter. If so, the iPad can feed flight plans to SkyView and
can be used as a repeater for the SkyView display. A nice add for a tandem
airplane or for interested passengers in the RV-10 rear seat.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack Philips
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 11:25 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Tech in the front office
-->
I'm using ForeFlight Pro (which is what is required with ForeFlight to get
the geo-referenced plates) with a Stratus 2 ADS-B unit. You're right - a
lot of money but how much is it worth to have such great situational
awareness, plus a backup of all flight instruments in case of a total power
failure?
Mind you, I haven't finished my -10 yet (just getting back on it after a 3
year hiatus to build a Fly-In Bed & Breakfast). My RV-10 will have an
autopilot. I'm flying IFR in a 62 year old Cessna 170, with no autopilot.
Single pilot IFR I'll take all the help money can buy.
Jack Phillips
Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia
40610 - Just ordered Fuselage Kit
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of kearney
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2015 10:47 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Tech in the front office
Hi
For the past couple of weeks I have been working on renewing my IFR rating.
In the process I have started lusting / drooling over the IPAD my instructor
used. It had georefed plates. I on the other hand was using low tech paper.
His gear / subscription cost beaucoup de dineros.
Being a frugal (ie miserly pilot) I am wondering what IPAD / tablet / mini
PC and subscription options others are using. I am especially interested in
where the cost / benefit sweet spot is.
Cheers
Les
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441931#441931
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tech in the front office |
| From: | P Reid <rv10flyer(at)live.com> |
Les
I use FltPlan go,which is free. Has georeferenced charts and would be a good way
to get started with a iPad Air (spend the extra and get the 4g model, for the
GPS feature-you do not need to ever signup with a provider)
Pascal
Sent from my iPad
> On May 9, 2015, at 7:52 AM, kearney wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> For the past couple of weeks I have been working on renewing my IFR rating. In
the process I have started lusting / drooling over the IPAD my instructor used.
It had georefed plates. I on the other hand was using low tech paper. His
gear / subscription cost beaucoup de dineros.
>
> Being a frugal (ie miserly pilot) I am wondering what IPAD / tablet / mini PC
and subscription options others are using. I am especially interested in where
the cost / benefit sweet spot is.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441931#441931
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | Tech in the front office |
I am using Wing-X and thus since I use it I think it is the best. :)
I have a Navworx ADS-B in my Rv-10 and I talk to that for weather and
traffic, etc. But that is not required.
I run it on an Ipad mini, but you need to by the more expensive unit to get
the better GPS. I do not use an external GPS with the Ipad.
Wing X is free for CFI's (I am not one) so you will see a lot of them using
it. If you work with the same CFI....look at what he/she is using and get
the same.......
The great thing about these devices is I lay in bed ignoring my wife and do
the flight plan for the next day, look at real time weather overlayed on my
flight plan and then just carry it into the airplane without doing anything
else. I have not learned how to write on the ipad so I still carry paper
with me to copy clearances etc.
Rene'
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of kearney
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 8:47 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Tech in the front office
Hi
For the past couple of weeks I have been working on renewing my IFR rating.
In the process I have started lusting / drooling over the IPAD my instructor
used. It had georefed plates. I on the other hand was using low tech paper.
His gear / subscription cost beaucoup de dineros.
Being a frugal (ie miserly pilot) I am wondering what IPAD / tablet / mini
PC and subscription options others are using. I am especially interested in
where the cost / benefit sweet spot is.
Cheers
Les
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441931#441931
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tech in the front office |
I run a 4G iPad Air, using the built in GPS. For the iPad,
I would highly recommend ONLY buying one with built in GPS,
so buy the Cellular version. I have owned, or do own, 5
different iPads over the years, and I can tell you that the
built-in GPS is definitely the way to go...even if you plan to
hook it up to an ADS-B system in flight. You NEVER have to
pay to activate the cellular service, so the only cost that
it adds is the up-front cost. But, once you've paid that,
you can now use the iPad with GPS in your car or anywhere
else as well, and with auto navigation apps or any other
software requiring GPS. The external GPS's came about because
in the iPad 1, the GPS sucked. Every model since then has
had a good GPS. So don't skimp on that. The external GPS's
these days are just a crude hack that will complicate things
and give you just one more thing to bring along, charge or break.
All of the EFB software vendors recommend you buy a Cellular
equipped model for the GPS as well. It simplifies things.
You may want to consider the new iPad Air2, because it has
an anti-glare screen. I've never owned one yet, but use a nice
anti-glare screen protector instead. In the RV-10 it works
well...on my trip last week we were constantly in the sun
and the iPad was very visible the whole time with the screen
brightness up. At night you really want/need to turn it down.
Luckily the EFB vendors make that easy.
From an EFB perspective, I own and have current charts the
following apps.
Foreflight (not Pro)
WingX (with IFR data subscription)
FlyQ
FltPlan Go
I have the least experience with FltPlan Go, but can tell you that
it seems they are interested in improving the app, so it may be a
good contender some day. Right now I think it's a little (lot)
more clumsy to operate, so I don't use it much. But I do update
my charts for a region before a big trip...just for the heck of it.
To date, I stick with my recommendations that I've expressed for years
now...and actually Aviation Consumer said the same thing once that
I read, and that is:
WingX is probably the best one to actually use in the cockpit.
It has awesome georeferenced charts, and has some intuitive things
built in so that you have the proper approach plates for your plan
for taxi, takeoff, cruise, approach, and landing. If you are flying
IFR and enter your plan, it will work very well for you. It also
has available an add on fuel price planner which is very nice, and
downloads the fuel prices so you have them in flight. WingX isn't
always as "pretty" as Foreflight, but I think the function is solid,
and works real well. Just before my last trip, I added the Wifi
module to my NavWorX ADS600B and that provided traffic and weather to
the ipad as well, which was pretty cool on WingX. One HUGE benefit
to WingX is that once you buy it, you can load it on any of your
iDevices. I have it on my phone and ipad, and my wife's phone
and ipad, and even on my kids ipads. It's on theirs solely as a
backup device so that if for any reason one of mine breaks, I can just
grab theirs. Also, with NavWorX ADS-B, I was able to stream that
ADS-B to 4 devices (maybe even more) at a time when I tested it out
on the last trip...so that means anyone in your plane could
theoretically hold a map and watch your progress. When I last
subscribed to WingX I also was able to buy a 3-year subscription for
I think $199, which made it even more affordable. WingX works with
MANY different ADS-B systems, which is a big plus to me. I think
Foreflight's "Stratus only" approach is pig headed. (They also now
plan to work with FreeFlight built-in systems, but still, what morons
are they that they want to limit your choices...come on, open it up
and your product will be more attractive) I was also at one point
able to buy a lifetime IFR data subscription from Seattle Avionics
for WingX, so that I don't ever pay for again. These days though,
WingX has their own "Pro" type offering that is even better, offering
routing for even your approach and such. Very cool stuff.
Foreflight, to date, is what I think is the best pre-flight software.
That was Aviation Consumers thought too at one point. They do an
excellent job displaying weather and filing flight plans and getting
briefings, and laying out routes. It's excellent software. It's
more clumsy to use in my opinion, for pulling up approach charts and
such, and I think that once you're in-flight, WingX is far nicer to
use. The Pro subscription adds a lot of cost, but adds the nice
georeferenced plates and such. Personally though, I don't have Pro
because I already have georeferenced plates on WingX. Not paying for
Pro on foreflight for that. Also, since they only work with
Stratus and Freeflight, I think that's a big downer on them. One other
big downer is that when you buy a subscription, you only get it on
one iphone, one ipad and one ipod touch for your account. This is a
HUGE issue for me. First of all, I would love for my wife to be
able to use it to lay out our flight plan, but I'm not paying them
another pile of cash just so that she can use the app that I already
pay for. The iPhone is a backup but not a NICE backup for an iPad,
so the fact that I can't put it on at least hers and my devices makes
it much less attractive. To date, we're usually always flying in the
same plane, so I'm not paying extra money to have us both use the
app. If ForeFlight changed the way this works, it would add a lot of
value for me, but as it is, this licensing and ADS-B compatibility
issue really makes it much less attractive. That said, for a VFR
pilot, I would say if you have to own just one app, just buy Foreflight
NON-pro and it will be excellent for you. My subscription is just about
up and I'm considering non-renewal. I just have to see if the
others are now up to speed on flight plan filing.
FlyQ is one that hold promise, but I can't really promote as a good
option right now. For one, the iPhone app isn't really too similar to
the iPad app, and until they get a unified app it won't be as nice.
At least, like WingX, my subscription I can put on all of my devices,
so that's a huge plus, and, it DOES work with almost all of the
ADS-B devices...they even hacked the Stratus 2 so you can use that
device with it now. So good on them for keeping it open. Now the
downside. While it seems reasonably good to use, and seemed to be
ok when just used on it's own, I recently tried to use it while
connected to the ADS-B system and it crashed more often than not.
So here is this pretty good app that I just can't yet trust or recommend
for anyone wanting to fly IFR. If they fixed the crashing, I think
it would be a contender. I also have a lifetime data subscription
for FlyQ...so at least it doesn't cost me any future money, but
I can own it and await the day that it works well. If it gets there,
it could be my "one" app some day, because I never have to pay another
dollar for anything...but they've got some work to do yet before I
can do that...let alone recommend anyone else buy it when the
competition works better. I believe they do offer a free trial,
so it's worth checking out.
So since these are all just apps, my personal recommendation is
to buy the ipad with cellular...probably the Air 2, and just
throw some money at the problem the first year. Buying a year
of Foreflight and a year of WingX wouldn't cost that much, and
doing the free trial of FlyQ and using the free FltPlan Go app
won't cost anything either. So buy a 64Gb or better iPad
and load them all on there and see how it goes. As one other person
said, it may be smart to use what your instructor is using for
now too. I personally think though that where the iPad is needed
most is on IFR flights and approaches, so for that I'd use WingX.
VFR pilots should maybe stick with Foreflight.
You have one other unique situation and that is being in Canada.
Foreflight costs extra for Canada info. I'm not even sure about
the others if they're even available. But it will be important
to look at area coverage when picking your app also.
One thing I would NEVER do again...use any Windows PC or app.
I don't think I'd even recommend Android as a platform. You will
have the largest selection and the most stable and feature filled
options by using an iPad.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of kearney
> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2015 8:47 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Tech in the front office
>
>
> Hi
>
> For the past couple of weeks I have been working on renewing my IFR rating.
> In the process I have started lusting / drooling over the IPAD my instructor
> used. It had georefed plates. I on the other hand was using low tech paper.
> His gear / subscription cost beaucoup de dineros.
>
> Being a frugal (ie miserly pilot) I am wondering what IPAD / tablet / mini
> PC and subscription options others are using. I am especially interested in
> where the cost / benefit sweet spot is.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tech in the front office |
| From: | "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> |
My two cents:
First a disclaimer. As a cfii I get WingX for free - but, I had it before the free
offer, I used to pay for it.
At $99/yr, it was cheaper than my $140/yr Jepp subscription, which was California
only! Plus sectionals, it's a bargain.
What else is in your panel? No point in buying ADSB twice. Garmin will only talk
to Garmin. I have GRT stuff so Stratus was out too. I bought a used Skyradar,
works with the GRT HX and WingX.
I flew ifr for many years with no moving maps, so I'm pretty good at position awareness.
Plus now I do have maps in the HX and 420W, so I did not pay for geo-referencing.
Now I have it, for free, but I do not use it, at least not that
I'm aware of.
I was not happy with the iPad. Would not fit on my lap without hitting the stick,
too heavy to hold all the time. I do not like mounts, they always seem to block
something, or when vfr the sun glares off them. I now have an iPad mini,
which is just right for me. Portrait mode locked in, its cover slides under my
knee board so it won't go anywhere. It is just big enough to read approach charts
without zooming. And light enough to pick up with one hand so I can hold
it right next to the EFIS if I need to read something for more than a few seconds.
I do have the cellular one, which I have used for weather just before takeoff.
Also TFRs! GPS always works okay. However, the Skyradar gps also always
seems to work, feeding both the iPad mini and, as a backup, the HX.
One more thing. WingX uses much more data compression than Foreflight. I have the
iPad mini 2 with the least available memory, and it has plenty left over. If
you go with Foreflight I think you want one step up in memory (I forget the
numbers) to have enough.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441945#441945
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tech in the front office |
| From: | "kearney" <kearney(at)shaw.ca> |
Hi
Many thanks for all the info. It is most useful. As I fly in Canada, I need Canadian
data as well as US data although US data is only needed a couple of times
a year.
I'll try all the free trials I can, but it looks like foreflight may be the only
viable Canadian option for the moment.
I am planning a trip to the US in a couple of weeks so I also need to sort out
the best US option at least for airport info. At least there I have a few more
options to explore.
Cheers
Les
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441948#441948
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tech in the front office |
I have an iPad running Foreflight pro with the Bad Elf GPS puck (my
original iPad was wifi only so it required a separate GPS puck, my
current iPad has the internal GPS but I still use the puck).
I have a separate Navworx ADSB receiver that will never be able to be
linked to my iPad - so no weather or traffic is displayed on the iPad.
Instead I look to my primary EFIS displays (Grand Rapids HXs) for
weather and traffic overlayed on the navigation screens. The iPad is a
supplement... but a drool worthy one that I don't leave home without.
I file and fly IFR on practically every flight. Flight planning and
filing is done on the iPad using Foreflight. Every base is well covered
by Foreflight and it still manages to delight when I need something new
like filing an ICAO flight plan for an international flight to the
Bahamas. Often the planning and filing is done in a hotel room, in a
car or at the FBO. I rarely use FBO flight planning rooms or equipment.
I learned the art of chart folding and pencil management flying single
pilot IFR without an AP. But since then I've gone paperless with the
iPad and Foreflight. No charts, no pencils, just a subscription, a
stylus for writing clearances on the Foreflight scratch pad, and an
iPhone running Foreflight for backup (the second copy is part of the
basic or pro Foreflight package).
The key to making this work for me was a good mount. I built a
fiberglass center console that 1) houses a O2 bottle and 2) holds a RAM
mount for the iPad that puts it right under my right hand during flight
so it can be easily used. You can see it here Kitlog page of console
construction
<http://www.mykitlog.com/users/category.php?user=MauleDriver&project=224&category=8533>
(I really need a picture of it being used in the cockpit). I also added
a USB charging port which typically gets used for my wife's phone. The
iPad's capacity is equivalent to the 10's range.
I don't know where the sweet spot is but the iPad with Foreflight Pro or
it's equivalent is a required part of my IFR flying. I do my 'tactical'
flying with my panel mounted EFISs but all planning, what-ifs, thinking
and re-orienting is done with the iPad. Geo-referenced taxi diagrams is
almost worth the price if you fly into a lot of new-to-you larger
airports. It's a fair price for a whole lot of benefit. It's a game
changer, a drooler, a "I'll never go back" kind of tool.
Looking at the bigger picture, portables enable us to keep our cockpits
current at a much more reasonable cost than a panel upgrade. My panel
was set in stone in late 2008. A lot has happened since then. While
software upgrades to my EFIS and other components have helped keep them
somewhat current, we rely on the portable to get the latest functions
implemented in the best possible ways, e.g. touch screen functionality,
faster processors, higher resolution screens. None of these are 'must
haves' but they are very very nice to haves and they are available for a
fraction of the cost of panel upgrades.
On 5/9/2015 10:46 AM, kearney wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> For the past couple of weeks I have been working on renewing my IFR rating. In
the process I have started lusting / drooling over the IPAD my instructor used.
It had georefed plates. I on the other hand was using low tech paper. His
gear / subscription cost beaucoup de dineros.
>
> Being a frugal (ie miserly pilot) I am wondering what IPAD / tablet / mini PC
and subscription options others are using. I am especially interested in where
the cost / benefit sweet spot is.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441931#441931
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tech in the front office |
Why do you say the NavWorX will never be able to be hooked to your iPad? I'
m assuming you just have it connected to the GRT via RS232. If so, you can j
ust split the TX wire and send it to the Wifi adapter. It should easily be a
ble to do both GRT and iPad.
Tim
> On May 10, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>
> I have an iPad running Foreflight pro with the Bad Elf GPS puck (my origin
al iPad was wifi only so it required a separate GPS puck, my current iPad ha
s the internal GPS but I still use the puck).
>
> I have a separate Navworx ADSB receiver that will never be able to be link
ed to my iPad - so no weather or traffic is displayed on the iPad. Instead I
look to my primary EFIS displays (Grand Rapids HXs) for weather and traffic
overlayed on the navigation screens. The iPad is a supplement... but a dro
ol worthy one that I don't leave home without.
>
> I file and fly IFR on practically every flight. Flight planning and filin
g is done on the iPad using Foreflight. Every base is well covered by Foref
light and it still manages to delight when I need something new like filing a
n ICAO flight plan for an international flight to the Bahamas. Often the pl
anning and filing is done in a hotel room, in a car or at the FBO. I rarely
use FBO flight planning rooms or equipment.
>
> I learned the art of chart folding and pencil management flying single pil
ot IFR without an AP. But since then I've gone paperless with the iPad and
Foreflight. No charts, no pencils, just a subscription, a stylus for writin
g clearances on the Foreflight scratch pad, and an iPhone running Foreflight
for backup (the second copy is part of the basic or pro Foreflight package)
.
>
> The key to making this work for me was a good mount. I built a fiberglass
center console that 1) houses a O2 bottle and 2) holds a RAM mount for the
iPad that puts it right under my right hand during flight so it can be easi
ly used. You can see it here Kitlog page of console construction (I really n
eed a picture of it being used in the cockpit). I also added a USB charging
port which typically gets used for my wife's phone. The iPad's capacity is
equivalent to the 10's range.
>
> I don't know where the sweet spot is but the iPad with Foreflight Pro or i
t's equivalent is a required part of my IFR flying. I do my 'tactical' flyi
ng with my panel mounted EFISs but all planning, what-ifs, thinking and re-o
rienting is done with the iPad. Geo-referenced taxi diagrams is almost wort
h the price if you fly into a lot of new-to-you larger airports. It's a fai
r price for a whole lot of benefit. It's a game changer, a drooler, a "I'll
never go back" kind of tool.
>
> Looking at the bigger picture, portables enable us to keep our cockpits cu
rrent at a much more reasonable cost than a panel upgrade. My panel was set
in stone in late 2008. A lot has happened since then. While software upgr
ades to my EFIS and other components have helped keep them somewhat current,
we rely on the portable to get the latest functions implemented in t
he best possible ways, e.g. touch screen functionality, faster processors, h
igher resolution screens. None of these are 'must haves' but they are very v
ery nice to haves and they are available for a fraction of the cost of panel
upgrades.
>
>> On 5/9/2015 10:46 AM, kearney wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> For the past couple of weeks I have been working on renewing my IFR ratin
g. In the process I have started lusting / drooling over the IPAD my instruc
tor used. It had georefed plates. I on the other hand was using low tech pap
er. His gear / subscription cost beaucoup de dineros.
>>
>> Being a frugal (ie miserly pilot) I am wondering what IPAD / tablet / mi
ni PC and subscription options others are using. I am especially interested i
n where the cost / benefit sweet spot is.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Les
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441931#441931
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tech in the front office |
| From: | Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
Bill is partially correct. I doubt that Foreflight will ever support NavW
orx. Now if you want to use WingX or another application, it shouldn't be
a problem.
Sent from my iPad
> On May 10, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Why do you say the NavWorX will never be able to be hooked to your iPad? I
'm assuming you just have it connected to the GRT via RS232. If so, you can
just split the TX wire and send it to the Wifi adapter. It should easily b
e able to do both GRT and iPad.
> Tim
>
>
>
>> On May 10, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>>
>> I have an iPad running Foreflight pro with the Bad Elf GPS puck (my origi
nal iPad was wifi only so it required a separate GPS puck, my current iPad h
as the internal GPS but I still use the puck).
>>
>> I have a separate Navworx ADSB receiver that will never be able to be lin
ked to my iPad - so no weather or traffic is displayed on the iPad. Instead
I look to my primary EFIS displays (Grand Rapids HXs) for weather and traff
ic overlayed on the navigation screens. The iPad is a supplement... but a d
rool worthy one that I don't leave home without.
>>
>> I file and fly IFR on practically every flight. Flight planning and fili
ng is done on the iPad using Foreflight. Every base is well covered by Fore
flight and it still manages to delight when I need something new like filing
an ICAO flight plan for an international flight to the Bahamas. Often the p
lanning and filing is done in a hotel room, in a car or at the FBO. I rarel
y use FBO flight planning rooms or equipment.
>>
>> I learned the art of chart folding and pencil management flying single pi
lot IFR without an AP. But since then I've gone paperless with the iPad and
Foreflight. No charts, no pencils, just a subscription, a stylus for writi
ng clearances on the Foreflight scratch pad, and an iPhone running Forefligh
t for backup (the second copy is part of the basic or pro Foreflight package
).
>>
>> The key to making this work for me was a good mount. I built a fiberglas
s center console that 1) houses a O2 bottle and 2) holds a RAM mount for th
e iPad that puts it right under my right hand during flight so it can be eas
ily used. You can see it here Kitlog page of console construction (I really
need a picture of it being used in the cockpit). I also added a USB chargi
ng port which typically gets used for my wife's phone. The iPad's capacity i
s equivalent to the 10's range.
>>
>> I don't know where the sweet spot is but the iPad with Foreflight Pro or i
t's equivalent is a required part of my IFR flying. I do my 'tactical' flyi
ng with my panel mounted EFISs but all planning, what-ifs, thinking and re-o
rienting is done with the iPad. Geo-referenced taxi diagrams is almost wort
h the price if you fly into a lot of new-to-you larger airports. It's a fai
r price for a whole lot of benefit. It's a game changer, a drooler, a "I'll
never go back" kind of tool.
>>
>> Looking at the bigger picture, portables enable us to keep our cockpits c
urrent at a much more reasonable cost than a panel upgrade. My panel was se
t in stone in late 2008. A lot has happened since then. While software upg
rades to my EFIS and other components have helped keep them somewhat current
, we rely on the portable to get the latest functions implemented in the be
st possible ways, e.g. touch screen functionality, faster processors, higher
resolution screens. None of these are 'must haves' but they are very very n
ice to haves and they are available for a fraction of the cost of panel upgr
ades.
>>
>>> On 5/9/2015 10:46 AM, kearney wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> For the past couple of weeks I have been working on renewing my IFR rati
ng. In the process I have started lusting / drooling over the IPAD my instru
ctor used. It had georefed plates. I on the other hand was using low tech pa
per. His gear / subscription cost beaucoup de dineros.
>>>
>>> Being a frugal (ie miserly pilot) I am wondering what IPAD / tablet / m
ini PC and subscription options others are using. I am especially interested
in where the cost / benefit sweet spot is.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441931#441931
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>
>>>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tech in the front office |
Yeah, after I sent thy, I was guessing that could be why. It sounds like Fl
tPlan Go is compatible with some ADs-B systems now too...I don't know the de
tails, and haven't tried mine, but for free that may be worth giving a shot.
Tim
> On May 10, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:
>
> Bill is partially correct. I doubt that Foreflight will ever support Na
vWorx. Now if you want to use WingX or another application, it shouldn't b
e a problem.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On May 10, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> Why do you say the NavWorX will never be able to be hooked to your iPad?
I'm assuming you just have it connected to the GRT via RS232. If so, you c
an just split the TX wire and send it to the Wifi adapter. It should easily
be able to do both GRT and iPad.
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 10, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>>>
>>> I have an iPad running Foreflight pro with the Bad Elf GPS puck (my orig
inal iPad was wifi only so it required a separate GPS puck, my current iPad h
as the internal GPS but I still use the puck).
>>>
>>> I have a separate Navworx ADSB receiver that will never be able to be li
nked to my iPad - so no weather or traffic is displayed on the iPad. Instea
d I look to my primary EFIS displays (Grand Rapids HXs) for weather and traf
fic overlayed on the navigation screens. The iPad is a supplement... but a d
rool worthy one that I don't leave home without.
>>>
>>> I file and fly IFR on practically every flight. Flight planning and fil
ing is done on the iPad using Foreflight. Every base is well covered by For
eflight and it still manages to delight when I need something new like filin
g an ICAO flight plan for an international flight to the Bahamas. Often the
planning and filing is done in a hotel room, in a car or at the FBO. I rar
ely use FBO flight planning rooms or equipment.
>>>
>>> I learned the art of chart folding and pencil management flying single p
ilot IFR without an AP. But since then I've gone paperless with the iPad an
d Foreflight. No charts, no pencils, just a subscription, a stylus for writ
ing clearances on the Foreflight scratch pad, and an iPhone running Foreflig
ht for backup (the second copy is part of the basic or pro Foreflight packag
e).
>>>
>>> The key to making this work for me was a good mount. I built a fibergla
ss center console that 1) houses a O2 bottle and 2) holds a RAM mount for t
he iPad that puts it right under my right hand during flight so it can be ea
sily used. You can see it here Kitlog page of console construction (I reall
y need a picture of it being used in the cockpit). I also added a USB charg
ing port which typically gets used for my wife's phone. The iPad's capacity
is equivalent to the 10's range.
>>>
>>> I don't know where the sweet spot is but the iPad with Foreflight Pro or
it's equivalent is a required part of my IFR flying. I do my 'tactical' fl
ying with my panel mounted EFISs but all planning, what-ifs, thinking and re
-orienting is done with the iPad. Geo-referenced taxi diagrams is almost wo
rth the price if you fly into a lot of new-to-you larger airports. It's a f
air price for a whole lot of benefit. It's a game changer, a drooler, a "I'
ll never go back" kind of tool.
>>>
>>> Looking at the bigger picture, portables enable us to keep our cockpits c
urrent at a much more reasonable cost than a panel upgrade. My panel was se
t in stone in late 2008. A lot has happened since then. While software upg
rades to my EFIS and other components have helped keep them somewhat current
, we rely on the portable to get the latest functions implemented in the be
st possible ways, e.g. touch screen functionality, faster processors, higher
resolution screens. None of these are 'must haves' but they are very very n
ice to haves and they are available for a fraction of the cost of panel upgr
ades.
>>>
>>>> On 5/9/2015 10:46 AM, kearney wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> For the past couple of weeks I have been working on renewing my IFR rat
ing. In the process I have started lusting / drooling over the IPAD my instr
uctor used. It had georefed plates. I on the other hand was using low tech p
aper. His gear / subscription cost beaucoup de dineros.
>>>>
>>>> Being a frugal (ie miserly pilot) I am wondering what IPAD / tablet / m
ini PC and subscription options others are using. I am especially interested
in where the cost / benefit sweet spot is.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Les
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441931#441931
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tech in the front office |
Ever is a long time. I am sure Foreflight will have to start supporting othe
r ads-b formats before long or they will be unable to compete. They are very
conservative, so they are late adopters of certain features/compatibilities
, but when something is out, stable and dependable, they will be, IMHO, more
open to adding compatibility.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On May 10, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:
>
> Bill is partially correct. I doubt that Foreflight will ever support Na
vWorx. Now if you want to use WingX or another application, it shouldn't b
e a problem.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On May 10, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> Why do you say the NavWorX will never be able to be hooked to your iPad?
I'm assuming you just have it connected to the GRT via RS232. If so, you c
an just split the TX wire and send it to the Wifi adapter. It should easily
be able to do both GRT and iPad.
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 10, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>>>
>>> I have an iPad running Foreflight pro with the Bad Elf GPS puck (my orig
inal iPad was wifi only so it required a separate GPS puck, my current iPad h
as the internal GPS but I still use the puck).
>>>
>>> I have a separate Navworx ADSB receiver that will never be able to be li
nked to my iPad - so no weather or traffic is displayed on the iPad. Instea
d I look to my primary EFIS displays (Grand Rapids HXs) for weather and traf
fic overlayed on the navigation screens. The iPad is a supplement... but a d
rool worthy one that I don't leave home without.
>>>
>>> I file and fly IFR on practically every flight. Flight planning and fil
ing is done on the iPad using Foreflight. Every base is well covered by For
eflight and it still manages to delight when I need something new like filin
g an ICAO flight plan for an international flight to the Bahamas. Often the
planning and filing is done in a hotel room, in a car or at the FBO. I rar
ely use FBO flight planning rooms or equipment.
>>>
>>> I learned the art of chart folding and pencil management flying single p
ilot IFR without an AP. But since then I've gone paperless with the iPad an
d Foreflight. No charts, no pencils, just a subscription, a stylus for writ
ing clearances on the Foreflight scratch pad, and an iPhone running Foreflig
ht for backup (the second copy is part of the basic or pro Foreflight packag
e).
>>>
>>> The key to making this work for me was a good mount. I built a fibergla
ss center console that 1) houses a O2 bottle and 2) holds a RAM mount for t
he iPad that puts it right under my right hand during flight so it can be ea
sily used. You can see it here Kitlog page of console construction (I reall
y need a picture of it being used in the cockpit). I also added a USB charg
ing port which typically gets used for my wife's phone. The iPad's capacity
is equivalent to the 10's range.
>>>
>>> I don't know where the sweet spot is but the iPad with Foreflight Pro or
it's equivalent is a required part of my IFR flying. I do my 'tactical' fl
ying with my panel mounted EFISs but all planning, what-ifs, thinking and re
-orienting is done with the iPad. Geo-referenced taxi diagrams is almost wo
rth the price if you fly into a lot of new-to-you larger airports. It's a f
air price for a whole lot of benefit. It's a game changer, a drooler, a "I'
ll never go back" kind of tool.
>>>
>>> Looking at the bigger picture, portables enable us to keep our cockpits c
urrent at a much more reasonable cost than a panel upgrade. My panel was se
t in stone in late 2008. A lot has happened since then. While software upg
rades to my EFIS and other components have helped keep them somewhat current
, we rely on the portable to get the latest functions implemented in the be
st possible ways, e.g. touch screen functionality, faster processors, higher
resolution screens. None of these are 'must haves' but they are very very n
ice to haves and they are available for a fraction of the cost of panel upgr
ades.
>>>
>>>> On 5/9/2015 10:46 AM, kearney wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> For the past couple of weeks I have been working on renewing my IFR rat
ing. In the process I have started lusting / drooling over the IPAD my instr
uctor used. It had georefed plates. I on the other hand was using low tech p
aper. His gear / subscription cost beaucoup de dineros.
>>>>
>>>> Being a frugal (ie miserly pilot) I am wondering what IPAD / tablet / m
ini PC and subscription options others are using. I am especially interested
in where the cost / benefit sweet spot is.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Les
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441931#441931
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alan Mekler MD <amekler(at)metrocast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tech in the front office |
Jesse,
I heard Avidyne will be using wifi and Foreflight .
Alan
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 10, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> Ever is a long time. I am sure Foreflight will have to start supporting ot
her ads-b formats before long or they will be unable to compete. They are ve
ry conservative, so they are late adopters of certain features/compatibiliti
es, but when something is out, stable and dependable, they will be, IMHO, mo
re open to adding compatibility.
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> 352-427-0285
> jesse(at)saintaviation.com
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On May 10, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:
>>
>> Bill is partially correct. I doubt that Foreflight will ever support N
avWorx. Now if you want to use WingX or another application, it shouldn't
be a problem.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>> On May 10, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you say the NavWorX will never be able to be hooked to your iPad?
I'm assuming you just have it connected to the GRT via RS232. If so, you c
an just split the TX wire and send it to the Wifi adapter. It should easily
be able to do both GRT and iPad.
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 10, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have an iPad running Foreflight pro with the Bad Elf GPS puck (my ori
ginal iPad was wifi only so it required a separate GPS puck, my current iPad
has the internal GPS but I still use the puck).
>>>>
>>>> I have a separate Navworx ADSB receiver that will never be able to be l
inked to my iPad - so no weather or traffic is displayed on the iPad. Inste
ad I look to my primary EFIS displays (Grand Rapids HXs) for weather and tra
ffic overlayed on the navigation screens. The iPad is a supplement... but a
drool worthy one that I don't leave home without.
>>>>
>>>> I file and fly IFR on practically every flight. Flight planning and fi
ling is done on the iPad using Foreflight. Every base is well covered
by Foreflight and it still manages to delight when I need something new lik
e filing an ICAO flight plan for an international flight to the Bahamas. Of
ten the planning and filing is done in a hotel room, in a car or at the FBO.
I rarely use FBO flight planning rooms or equipment.
>>>>
>>>> I learned the art of chart folding and pencil management flying single p
ilot IFR without an AP. But since then I've gone paperless with the iPad an
d Foreflight. No charts, no pencils, just a subscription, a stylus for writ
ing clearances on the Foreflight scratch pad, and an iPhone running Foreflig
ht for backup (the second copy is part of the basic or pro Foreflight packag
e).
>>>>
>>>> The key to making this work for me was a good mount. I built a fibergl
ass center console that 1) houses a O2 bottle and 2) holds a RAM mount for t
he iPad that puts it right under my right hand during flight so it can be ea
sily used. You can see it here Kitlog page of console construction (I reall
y need a picture of it being used in the cockpit). I also added a USB charg
ing port which typically gets used for my wife's phone. The iPad's capacity
is equivalent to the 10's range.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know where the sweet spot is but the iPad with Foreflight Pro o
r it's equivalent is a required part of my IFR flying. I do my 'tactical' f
lying with my panel mounted EFISs but all planning, what-ifs, thinking and r
e-orienting is done with the iPad. Geo-referenced taxi diagrams is almost w
orth the price if you fly into a lot of new-to-you larger airports. It's a f
air price for a whole lot of benefit. It's a game changer, a drooler, a "I'
ll never go back" kind of tool.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the bigger picture, portables enable us to keep our cockpits
current at a much more reasonable cost than a panel upgrade. My panel was s
et in stone in late 2008. A lot has happened since then. While software up
grades to my EFIS and other components have helped keep them somewhat curren
t, we rely on the portable to get the latest functions implemented in the b
est possible ways, e.g. touch screen functionality, faster processors, highe
r resolution screens. None of these are 'must haves' but they are very very
nice to haves and they are available for a fraction of the cost of panel up
grades.
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/9/2015 10:46 AM, kearney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> For the past couple of weeks I have been working on renewing my IFR ra
ting. In the process I have started lusting / drooling over the IPAD my inst
ructor used. It had georefed plates. I on the other hand was using low tech p
aper. His gear / subscription cost beaucoup de dineros.
>>>>>
>>>>> Being a frugal (ie miserly pilot) I am wondering what IPAD / tablet /
mini PC and subscription options others are using. I am especially interest
ed in where the cost / benefit sweet spot is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> Les
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441931#441931
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----
>>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>> //forums.matronics.com
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>
>>
>>
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tech in the front office |
I also think if they hear that feedback enough they would have to listen.
I'm not sure how standardized the data format is for sure between all of the
se devices but I believe they are fairly standardized. So, adding support f
or a new device should be very simple for them.
Tim
> On May 10, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> Ever is a long time. I am sure Foreflight will have to start supporting ot
her ads-b formats before long or they will be unable to compete. They are ve
ry conservative, so they are late adopters of certain features/compatibiliti
es, but when something is out, stable and dependable, they will be, IMHO, mo
re open to adding compatibility.
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> 352-427-0285
> jesse(at)saintaviation.com
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On May 10, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:
>>
>> Bill is partially correct. I doubt that Foreflight will ever support N
avWorx. Now if you want to use WingX or another application, it shouldn't
be a problem.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>> On May 10, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you say the NavWorX will never be able to be hooked to your iPad?
I'm assuming you just have it connected to the GRT via RS232. If so, you c
an just split the TX wire and send it to the Wifi adapter. It should easily
be able to do both GRT and iPad.
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 10, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have an iPad running Foreflight pro with the Bad Elf GPS puck (my ori
ginal iPad was wifi only so it required a separate GPS puck, my current iPad
has the internal GPS but I still use the puck).
>>>>
>>>> I have a separate Navworx ADSB receiver that will never be able to be l
inked to my iPad - so no weather or traffic is displayed on the iPad. Inste
ad I look to my primary EFIS displays (Grand Rapids HXs) for weather and tra
ffic overlayed on the navigation screens. The iPad is a supplement... but a
drool worthy one that I don't leave home without.
>>>>
>>>> I file and fly IFR on practically every flight. Flight planning and fi
ling is done on the iPad using Foreflight. Every base is well covered by Fo
reflight and it still manages to delight when I need something new like fili
ng an ICAO flight plan for an international flight to the Bahamas. Often th
e planning and filing is done in a hotel room, in a car or at the FBO. I ra
rely use FBO flight planning rooms or equipment.
>>>>
>>>> I learned the art of chart folding and pencil management flying single p
ilot IFR without an AP. But since then I've gone paperless with the iPad an
d Foreflight. No charts, no pencils, just a subscription, a stylus for writ
ing clearances on the Foreflight scratch pad, and an iPhone running Foreflig
ht for backup (the second copy is part of the basic or pro Foreflight packag
e).
>>>>
>>>> The key to making this work for me was a good mount. I built a fibergl
ass center console that 1) houses a O2 bottle and 2) holds a RAM mount for t
he iPad that puts it right under my right hand during flight so it can be ea
sily used. You can see it here Kitlog page of console construction (I reall
y need a picture of it being used in the cockpit). I also added a USB charg
ing port which typically gets used for my wife's phone. The iPad's capacity
is equivalent to the 10's range.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know where the sweet spot is but the iPad with Foreflight Pro o
r it's equivalent is a required part of my IFR flying. I do my 'tactical' f
lying with my panel mounted EFISs but all planning, what-ifs, thinking and r
e-orienting is done with the iPad. Geo-referenced taxi diagrams is almost w
orth the price if you fly into a lot of new-to-you larger airports. It's a f
air price for a whole lot of benefit. It's a game changer, a drooler, a "I'
ll never go back" kind of tool.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the bigger picture, portables enable us to keep our cockpits
current at a much more reasonable cost than a panel upgrade. My panel was s
et in stone in late 2008. A lot has happened since then. While software up
grades to my EFIS and other components have helped keep them somewhat curren
t, we rely on the portable to get the latest functions implemented in the b
est possible ways, e.g. touch screen functionality, faster processors, highe
r resolution screens. None of these are 'must haves' but they are very very
nice to haves and they are available for a fraction of the cost of panel up
grades.
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/9/2015 10:46 AM, kearney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> For the past couple of weeks I have been working on renewing my IFR ra
ting. In the process I have started lusting / drooling over the IPAD my inst
ructor used. It had georefed plates. I on the other hand was using low tech p
aper. His gear / subscription cost beaucoup de dineros.
>>>>>
>>>>> Being a frugal (ie miserly pilot) I am wondering what IPAD / tablet /
mini PC and subscription options others are using. I am especially interest
ed in where the cost / benefit sweet spot is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> Les
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441931#441931
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----
>>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>> //forums.matronics.com
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>
>>
>>
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tech in the front office |
And NavWorX makes Avidyne's box for them...
Tim
> On May 10, 2015, at 6:50 PM, Alan Mekler MD wrote:
>
> Jesse,
> I heard Avidyne will be using wifi and Foreflight .
> Alan
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On May 10, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>>
>> Ever is a long time. I am sure Foreflight will have to start supporting o
ther ads-b formats before long or they will be unable to compete. They are v
ery conservative, so they are late adopters of certain features/compatibilit
ies, but when something is out, stable and dependable, they will be, IMHO, m
ore open to adding compatibility.
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> 352-427-0285
>> jesse(at)saintaviation.com
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>> On May 10, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill is partially correct. I doubt that Foreflight will ever support N
avWorx. Now if you want to use WingX or another application, it shouldn't
be a problem.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>> On May 10, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why do you say the NavWorX will never be able to be hooked to your iPad
? I'm assuming you just have it connected to the GRT via RS232. If so, you
can just split the TX wire and send it to the Wifi adapter. It should easi
ly be able to do both GRT and iPad.
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On May 10, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Bill Watson wrote
:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have an iPad running Foreflight pro with the Bad Elf GPS puck (my or
iginal iPad was wifi only so it required a separate GPS puck, my current iPa
d has the internal GPS but I still use the puck).
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a separate Navworx ADSB receiver that will never be able to
be linked to my iPad - so no weather or traffic is displayed on the iPad.
Instead I look to my primary EFIS displays (Grand Rapids HXs) for weather a
nd traffic overlayed on the navigation screens. The iPad is a supplement...
but a drool worthy one that I don't leave home without.
>>>>>
>>>>> I file and fly IFR on practically every flight. Flight planning and f
iling is done on the iPad using Foreflight. Every base is well covered by Fo
reflight and it still manages to delight when I need something new like fili
ng an ICAO flight plan for an international flight to the Bahamas. Often th
e planning and filing is done in a hotel room, in a car or at the FBO. I ra
rely use FBO flight planning rooms or equipment.
>>>>>
>>>>> I learned the art of chart folding and pencil management flying single
pilot IFR without an AP. But since then I've gone paperless with the iPad a
nd Foreflight. No charts, no pencils, just a subscription, a stylus f
or writing clearances on the Foreflight scratch pad, and an iPhone running Fo
reflight for backup (the second copy is part of the basic or pro Foreflight p
ackage).
>>>>>
>>>>> The key to making this work for me was a good mount. I built a fiberg
lass center console that 1) houses a O2 bottle and 2) holds a RAM mount for
the iPad that puts it right under my right hand during flight so it can be e
asily used. You can see it here Kitlog page of console construction (I real
ly need a picture of it being used in the cockpit). I also added a USB char
ging port which typically gets used for my wife's phone. The iPad's capacit
y is equivalent to the 10's range.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know where the sweet spot is but the iPad with Foreflight Pro o
r it's equivalent is a required part of my IFR flying. I do my 'tactical' f
lying with my panel mounted EFISs but all planning, what-ifs, thinking and r
e-orienting is done with the iPad. Geo-referenced taxi diagrams is almost w
orth the price if you fly into a lot of new-to-you larger airports. It's a f
air price for a whole lot of benefit. It's a game changer, a drooler, a "I'
ll never go back" kind of tool.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at the bigger picture, portables enable us to keep our cockpit
s current at a much more reasonable cost than a panel upgrade. My panel was
set in stone in late 2008. A lot has happened since then. While software u
pgrades to my EFIS and other components have helped keep them somewhat curre
nt, we rely on the portable to get the latest functions implemented in the b
est possible ways, e.g. touch screen functionality, faster processors, highe
r resolution screens. None of these are 'must haves' but they are very very
nice to haves and they are available for a fraction of the cost of panel up
grades.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/9/2015 10:46 AM, kearney wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the past couple of weeks I have been working on renewing my IFR r
ating. In the process I have started lusting / drooling over the IPAD my ins
tructor used. It had georefed plates. I on the other hand was using low tech
paper. His gear / subscription cost beaucoup de dineros.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Being a frugal (ie miserly pilot) I am wondering what IPAD / tablet /
mini PC and subscription options others are using. I am especially interest
ed in where the cost / benefit sweet spot is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441931#441931
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D
>>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D
>>>> //forums.matronics.com
>>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D
>>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>> //forums.matronics.com
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>
>>
>>
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tech in the front office |
I assume you mean their ADS-B In receiver. Trig makes the Avidyne 340
ADS-B Out for them. It is basically a TT31 with a different front
faceplate. Ditto the KN-74, and the Dynon 1090ES that is a TT21/22 with
Dynon label.
On 5/10/2015 5:19 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
> And NavWorX makes Avidyne's box for them...
> Tim
>
>
> On May 10, 2015, at 6:50 PM, Alan Mekler MD > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>> I heard Avidyne will be using wifi and Foreflight .
April 21, 2015 - May 10, 2015
RV10-Archive.digest.vol-km