Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:36 AM - Re: Randy #006 latest photos are up (Russell Daves)
2. 05:22 AM - Re: RV-10 Engine choices (stevenflys1@juno.com)
3. 06:26 AM - Re: RV-10 Engine choices (Tim Olson)
4. 07:23 AM - Re: RV-10 Engine choices (Eric Parlow)
5. 07:43 AM - Re: RV-10 Engine choices (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
6. 07:48 AM - Re: RV-10 Engine choices (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
7. 07:49 AM - Re: W&B (Dj Merrill)
8. 07:49 AM - Re: RV-10 Engine choices (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
9. 08:46 AM - Re: RV-10 Engine choices - Egg (Mani Ravee)
10. 08:59 AM - Re: RV-10 Engine choices - Egg (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
11. 09:18 AM - Re: Switching to a 7A (Paul Folbrecht)
12. 10:09 AM - Re: Randy #006 latest photos are up (Jim Combs)
13. 10:16 AM - Wing kit damaged in shipping (Darton Steve)
14. 10:30 AM - Egg Subaru engine. (John Hasbrouck)
15. 10:55 AM - Wing kit damaged in shipping (Darton Steve)
16. 11:05 AM - Re: Wing kit damaged in shipping (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
17. 11:13 AM - Re: Wing kit damaged in shipping (Rick)
18. 11:29 AM - Re: Switching to a 7A (Rick)
19. 11:35 AM - Re: Switching to a 7A (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
20. 11:36 AM - Re: Egg Subaru engine. (Dj Merrill)
21. 12:03 PM - Re: Egg Subaru engine. (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
22. 12:05 PM - Re: Wing kit damaged in shipping (Tim Olson)
23. 12:39 PM - Re: Switching to a 7A (John Jessen)
24. 12:42 PM - Re: Switching to a 7A (Rick)
25. 12:45 PM - RV-10 Engine Options (Bill and Tami Britton)
26. 02:17 PM - Re: Egg Subaru engine. (Jim Combs)
27. 02:34 PM - Re: RV-10 Engine Options (Jesse Saint)
28. 02:52 PM - Re: RV-10 Engine Options (Sean Stephens)
29. 04:06 PM - Re: Switching to a 7A (McGANN, Ron)
30. 04:10 PM - Re: RV-10 Engine Options (Jeff Carpenter)
31. 05:35 PM - Re: RV-10 Engine choices (Bill Schlatterer)
32. 06:49 PM - Re: Switching to a 7A (Steve Eberhart)
33. 07:30 PM - Re: Wing kit damaged in shipping (Robin Wessel)
34. 08:00 PM - Re: RV-10 Engine choices (Mike Comeaux)
35. 09:01 PM - Re: RV-10 Engine choices (Tim Olson)
36. 09:19 PM - Re: engine options (David McNeill)
37. 09:24 PM - QB (David McNeill)
38. 09:27 PM - Re: Wing kit damaged in shipping (Rene)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Randy #006 latest photos are up |
I am putting a pre-oiler on my RV-10. I bought the following pump:
GP301-12 -- 12 VDC / 60 PSI / 3 GPM - 11.4 LPM / 10 AMP CB / weight 3 lbs. Gear
Pump for use as a Intermittent Duty Pre-Oiler and Back-Up Oil Pump; or for the
transfer of Lube Oil, Diesel Fuel, Antifreeze and Water; bronze gears/stainless
shafts, brass pump body with lip seal; -6 fittings -- $230.00
from http://www.infinityaerospace.com/
I am going to use it strictly as a pre-start and post-shutdown oiler, with a direct
wire switch to turn on and off seperate from the Master switch.
Russ Daves
RV-10 #40044 (installing the baggage door)
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Engine choices |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "stevenflys1@juno.com" <stevenflys1@juno.com>
Bill,
I have not ordered my RV-10 kit yet (middle of nasty divorce) but I have been
contemplating the engine issue also. Two forced landings with well maintained
Lycoming engines makes me reluctant to put one on my RV-10. Eggenfellner
and Delta Hawk are also my top choices. I read that Eggenfellner is actually
waiting for Subaru to release the higher horsepower H-6. Once Subaru starts
producing the engine (maybe the 2006 models?) he will make a FWF package for the
10.
Delta Hawk diesel would actually be my first choice. The inverted V-8 "light"
that is currently under development is intriguing. 300 horsepower up to 20,000
feet or greater gives a lot of capability. My big question is how much
work is required to develop the FWF package once the engine is available? The
engine mounts must be developed, exhaust, and cowling. Anything else that I
am forgetting? I know some very capable engineers that might be able to help
with some of the FWF.
Rambled enough. Hope to join the building ranks by the middle or end of 2005.
Just depends on how the divorce progresses.
Steven Morris
WannaBe RV-10 Builder
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Engine choices |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
To all of the people who are looking at Eggenfellner engines, I don't
want to cause big waves, but you might be interested in another
viewpoint. Many people have good comments about them, and I've heard
a few who have bad opinions. I just happen to belong to the an EAA
chapter with a current RV-9 builder who isn't so happy with them.
In fact, I believe there is a lawsuit going on. From what I got out
of the story, Egg sold him an engine for his -9 with claims of something
like 170hp or so, but in the end, the guy found out from other builders
that it was really some extremely low HP model. Even Egg admitted later
to the HP discrepency. The guy also told me that the engine also
doesn't have all the stuff it needs to run, so it'll never fly.
He called Egg numerous times, and ended up being hung-up on. If
my memory of the situation is right, they actually dropped that engine
model and now have more powerful ones. All he was looking for was for
them to take the engine back, and give him credit towards one of the
newer ones that really did have the claimed HP ratings, but they
weren't willing to do much of anything about it.
It just surprised me because there are a lot of people who seem to
like either their theory, their engines, or maybe the fact that they're
just not Lycomings, but when I heard this guy's story, I know it
left an impression on me. I'm not saying that builders shouldn't
go that route, but, if you do go with any alternate engines, (or for
that matter, ANY engine) I'd make sure you ask a lot of questions
and get some good info up front. I believe the guy I know said he's
out over $10,000 for basically nothing, and he's now so turned off
by the thing that unless they sent him the right engine, he's going
Lycoming. He said if he could do it all over, he'd have just gone
that route up front.
Take it all with a grain of salt, but it's one more data point.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Bill and Tami Britton wrote:
> I know this whole engine choice thing has already been hashed over, but
> I have to wonder if anybody has given any thought to the 245-255 HP
> Subaru H-6 that Jan Eggenfellner is supposedly working on. I was
> completely sold on the Egg motors when I was going to build a -7. Then
> I switched to a -10 and unfortunately none of his motors that he
> currently produces are in the HP range I'm looking for. Earlier this
> year he stated that he thought they'd be releasing them in late 2005.
> However, I've not heard anything else about them since then. Perhaps
> some of you guys that made it to Sun'n'Fun might have seen or heard
> something related to this engine???
>
> I know that there are those of you who only believe that Lycomings or
> Continentals are the only engines that should be used in planes but I
> have several reasons why I'd use the H-6 package if it looks good.
>
> I suppose in the end I'll probably end up with an (I)0-540 but just
> curious what others are thinking on the whole alternative engine thing.
>
> Also, I'm very interested in the Deltahawk, but they need to get their
> stuff together pretty quick because I think they require different
> venting in the tank. (Not to mention a larger fill hole and cap to
> accomodate the larger nozzles that most JetA pumps have) Any other
> thoughts on this???
>
> Thanks,
> Bill Britton
> RV-10 Emp #40137
> VERRRRRYYY Slowly riveting HS
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Engine choices |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com>
The Subaru is not a 260 hp aircraft engine and Deltahawk has yet to make
even a 160 hp engine available.
The story may change in 2-4 years.
Again,
Why not consider the IO(F)-550 from TCM?
Full FADEC available and up to 310bhp!
Interfaces with several EFIS systems for full engine diagnotisics included.
Similar weight & installation to IO-540 Lyc.
One drawback is a 2000 hr TBO and planning for a top overhaul at 1000 hrs
($6000).
IO-550 cost is $43,000; $49,000 with FADEC. (IO-540 Lyc is $40,000)
The (T)IO(F)-550 is used in:
Cirrus SR22
Lancair Columbia 300, 350, 400; ES, IV, IVP, Legacy.
Mooney Ovation
Cessna Fastlane STC
Express 2000
Adam 500
Beech Bonanza, Baron
+
If a Full FWF installation kit was available would it change your mind?
ERic--
RV-8A
RV-10 in planning stage
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine choices |
I think your IO-550 is too heavy. And more HP than necssary.
Anybody heard anything out of Bombardier lately? Or did they pull the plug on
their V-engines?
TDT
40025
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric Parlow
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com>
The Subaru is not a 260 hp aircraft engine and Deltahawk has yet to make
even a 160 hp engine available.
The story may change in 2-4 years.
Again,
Why not consider the IO(F)-550 from TCM?
Full FADEC available and up to 310bhp!
Interfaces with several EFIS systems for full engine diagnotisics included.
Similar weight & installation to IO-540 Lyc.
One drawback is a 2000 hr TBO and planning for a top overhaul at 1000 hrs
($6000).
IO-550 cost is $43,000; $49,000 with FADEC. (IO-540 Lyc is $40,000)
The (T)IO(F)-550 is used in:
Cirrus SR22
Lancair Columbia 300, 350, 400; ES, IV, IVP, Legacy.
Mooney Ovation
Cessna Fastlane STC
Express 2000
Adam 500
Beech Bonanza, Baron
+
If a Full FWF installation kit was available would it change your mind?
ERic--
RV-8A
RV-10 in planning stage
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine choices |
To let you know, I have been following Jan's product for years, and it
just keeps getting better. I was in the same situation as you, I had
given my deposit for a Eggenfellner while building a 7, I have switched
to the 10, and I still have the deposit with Jan. I have talked with him
several times, and he says that by next year he should have a FWF for
the 10. I am keeping my fingers crossed that he will out pace me, and it
will be ready as I am.
Have you been down to the factory in FL, and taken a demo flight? It
will seal your fate once you have ridden in one with the MT prop. This
is the engine I want to use, I just hope it is available in time, if not
I will buy a Lyc and sell it ASAP when the Eggenfellner is avail.
Jan recommends using the GRT EIS, so I am going that route, with a 3
screen GRT. Should be as close to plug in play as possible. I talked
with Tony at Lancair and they said they have done one Egg panel for the
smaller RV, and it should not be a problem to do a panel for a 10 with
the EGG. So, both the engine and panel will be as easy as possible to
install.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill and Tami
Britton
Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
I know this whole engine choice thing has already been hashed over, but
I have to wonder if anybody has given any thought to the 245-255 HP
Subaru H-6 that Jan Eggenfellner is supposedly working on. I was
completely sold on the Egg motors when I was going to build a -7. Then
I switched to a -10 and unfortunately none of his motors that he
currently produces are in the HP range I'm looking for. Earlier this
year he stated that he thought they'd be releasing them in late 2005.
However, I've not heard anything else about them since then. Perhaps
some of you guys that made it to Sun'n'Fun might have seen or heard
something related to this engine???
I know that there are those of you who only believe that Lycomings or
Continentals are the only engines that should be used in planes but I
have several reasons why I'd use the H-6 package if it looks good.
I suppose in the end I'll probably end up with an (I)0-540 but just
curious what others are thinking on the whole alternative engine thing.
Also, I'm very interested in the Deltahawk, but they need to get their
stuff together pretty quick because I think they require different
venting in the tank. (Not to mention a larger fill hole and cap to
accomodate the larger nozzles that most JetA pumps have) Any other
thoughts on this???
Thanks,
Bill Britton
RV-10 Emp #40137
VERRRRRYYY Slowly riveting HS
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Tim Olson wrote:
> This was scanned in and fed thru OCR, and into OpenOffice 1.9.5 to be
> converted to a .PDF It came out very respectable, but I wouldn't
> trust that every character came out perfect.
Ha! *grin* You know, scanning it directly into
a .jpg would have worked just fine... *wink*
-Dj
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine choices |
I think it would take at least a FWF package for the 550 in addition to a few successful
installs. Last I checked there were many issues around using that engine
in a -10 along with many issues with the FADEC itself. Velocity finally
yanked that engine off of their demonstrator because of ongoing problems. Weight,
size, power output are the first things that come to mind to conspire against
install in a -10. Not to mention that sucking sound of money from my wallet
for a large thirsty engine. ;-)
Michael
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Eric Parlow
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com>
The Subaru is not a 260 hp aircraft engine and Deltahawk has yet to make
even a 160 hp engine available.
The story may change in 2-4 years.
Again,
Why not consider the IO(F)-550 from TCM?
Full FADEC available and up to 310bhp!
Interfaces with several EFIS systems for full engine diagnotisics included.
Similar weight & installation to IO-540 Lyc.
One drawback is a 2000 hr TBO and planning for a top overhaul at 1000 hrs
($6000).
IO-550 cost is $43,000; $49,000 with FADEC. (IO-540 Lyc is $40,000)
The (T)IO(F)-550 is used in:
Cirrus SR22
Lancair Columbia 300, 350, 400; ES, IV, IVP, Legacy.
Mooney Ovation
Cessna Fastlane STC
Express 2000
Adam 500
Beech Bonanza, Baron
+
If a Full FWF installation kit was available would it change your mind?
ERic--
RV-8A
RV-10 in planning stage
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine choices - Egg |
Lloyd, please keep us/me informed about the egg engine as it happens. I met
Jan at Sun&fun and he was very upfront. I would like to use the 250 hp
version of the H6 when avail. Meanwhile will keep building.
Mani
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Subject: RE: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
To let you know, I have been following Jan's product for years, and it just
keeps getting better. I was in the same situation as you, I had given my
deposit for a Eggenfellner while building a 7, I have switched to the 10,
and I still have the deposit with Jan. I have talked with him several times,
and he says that by next year he should have a FWF for the 10. I am keeping
my fingers crossed that he will out pace me, and it will be ready as I am.
Have you been down to the factory in FL, and taken a demo flight? It will
seal your fate once you have ridden in one with the MT prop. This is the
engine I want to use, I just hope it is available in time, if not I will buy
a Lyc and sell it ASAP when the Eggenfellner is avail.
Jan recommends using the GRT EIS, so I am going that route, with a 3 screen
GRT. Should be as close to plug in play as possible. I talked with Tony at
Lancair and they said they have done one Egg panel for the smaller RV, and
it should not be a problem to do a panel for a 10 with the EGG. So, both the
engine and panel will be as easy as possible to install.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill and Tami
Britton
Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
I know this whole engine choice thing has already been hashed over, but I
have to wonder if anybody has given any thought to the 245-255 HP Subaru H-6
that Jan Eggenfellner is supposedly working on. I was completely sold on
the Egg motors when I was going to build a -7. Then I switched to a -10 and
unfortunately none of his motors that he currently produces are in the HP
range I'm looking for. Earlier this year he stated that he thought they'd
be releasing them in late 2005. However, I've not heard anything else about
them since then. Perhaps some of you guys that made it to Sun'n'Fun might
have seen or heard something related to this engine???
I know that there are those of you who only believe that Lycomings or
Continentals are the only engines that should be used in planes but I have
several reasons why I'd use the H-6 package if it looks good.
I suppose in the end I'll probably end up with an (I)0-540 but just curious
what others are thinking on the whole alternative engine thing.
Also, I'm very interested in the Deltahawk, but they need to get their stuff
together pretty quick because I think they require different venting in the
tank. (Not to mention a larger fill hole and cap to accomodate the larger
nozzles that most JetA pumps have) Any other thoughts on this???
Thanks,
Bill Britton
RV-10 Emp #40137
VERRRRRYYY Slowly riveting HS
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine choices - Egg |
There's always CrossFlow . . . : ) ha ha
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Mani Ravee
Subject: RE: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices - Egg
Lloyd, please keep us/me informed about the egg engine as it happens. I met Jan
at Sun&fun and he was very upfront. I would like to use the 250 hp version of
the H6 when avail. Meanwhile will keep building.
Mani
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Subject: RE: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
To let you know, I have been following Jan's product for years, and it just keeps
getting better. I was in the same situation as you, I had given my deposit
for a Eggenfellner while building a 7, I have switched to the 10, and I still
have the deposit with Jan. I have talked with him several times, and he says that
by next year he should have a FWF for the 10. I am keeping my fingers crossed
that he will out pace me, and it will be ready as I am.
Have you been down to the factory in FL, and taken a demo flight? It will seal
your fate once you have ridden in one with the MT prop. This is the engine I want
to use, I just hope it is available in time, if not I will buy a Lyc and sell
it ASAP when the Eggenfellner is avail.
Jan recommends using the GRT EIS, so I am going that route, with a 3 screen GRT.
Should be as close to plug in play as possible. I talked with Tony at Lancair
and they said they have done one Egg panel for the smaller RV, and it should
not be a problem to do a panel for a 10 with the EGG. So, both the engine and
panel will be as easy as possible to install.
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill and Tami Britton
Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
I know this whole engine choice thing has already been hashed over, but I have
to wonder if anybody has given any thought to the 245-255 HP Subaru H-6 that Jan
Eggenfellner is supposedly working on. I was completely sold on the Egg motors
when I was going to build a -7. Then I switched to a -10 and unfortunately
none of his motors that he currently produces are in the HP range I'm looking
for. Earlier this year he stated that he thought they'd be releasing them
in late 2005. However, I've not heard anything else about them since then. Perhaps
some of you guys that made it to Sun'n'Fun might have seen or heard something
related to this engine???
I know that there are those of you who only believe that Lycomings or Continentals
are the only engines that should be used in planes but I have several reasons
why I'd use the H-6 package if it looks good.
I suppose in the end I'll probably end up with an (I)0-540 but just curious what
others are thinking on the whole alternative engine thing.
Also, I'm very interested in the Deltahawk, but they need to get their stuff together
pretty quick because I think they require different venting in the tank.
(Not to mention a larger fill hole and cap to accomodate the larger nozzles
that most JetA pumps have) Any other thoughts on this???
Thanks,
Bill Britton
RV-10 Emp #40137
VERRRRRYYY Slowly riveting HS
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=xUlzH+q3bPf2EKOegdK2WAADTsVs6JLBf0DRdJBgcPrWABFZM/RmVW5U9Y+V1GUnpq9YCLRCTXyykgtdIzNjVu9S2wuDHKvpQr07XJNydzG+6MfVoRpvIV2ZWSF18IZ7Ah8yQGZt+oxIrfWoFpXYSYE002nErc2H4MDg0hpY3Ug=
;
| Subject: | Re: Switching to a 7A |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
> Hey Paul, sorry to see you go from the -10, but hey, you're
> still "family" since you're going to the -7. :) Your reasons
Thanks. :-)
> are why when we get new inquiries on the list, I'm not
> one of those 100% "Yeah, do it!" kind of guys. It's best to
> fully, realistically, and honestly, evaluate your flying plans,
> your current cash situation, and the ongoing costs. The -10
I thought I'd done that. I did, actually, but it's largely a matter of
preference anyway. I could afford a 10 and afford to feed a 540 if I so
chose.. I just don't think it's wise to fly around 75% of the time with 2-3
empty seats. Just my preference.
> is NOT going to be a cheap bird, especially with the majority
> of the being full-IFR X/C cruisers. I think you're doing the
> right thing for your situation...and you're right, you can
> always build a -10 later.
I'll be going full IFR with the 7A as well. In fact, the panel will be exactly
as I've been planning with the 10. No money saved there.
> Now, that said, I'll warn you on one thing...since you don't already
> have the kids and wife, you may as well get a glimpse of the future.
> IF...you marry a girl who doesn't ever want to fly, you're probably
> going to just have a stressful situation on your hands. May as well
> make that a requirement for being Mrs. Folbrecht. And, if you end
The problem is that I have enough requirements already, believe me. :-) I'm
quite picky. Sometimes I feel like making it a hard requirement is
unrealistic.
I do know quite a few pilots whose wives do not fly.. if not "ever", than
"hardly ever". Then again.. I don't know if those are the best marriages.
Anyway I think it rather unlikely that I'll hook up with somebody who wouldn't
be drawn in even after some time. Hasn't been the case yet in recent
relationships. Someone like that (who just hated to fly) is probably somebody
with a personality not too compatible with me in general.
> up having a couple of kids, what you'll probably really find out
> is that you just don't go flying as much anymore....unless you take
> the WHOLE family. Kids and wifes take a lot of time. It's easy to
> go from being a 200hr/yr pilot to a 45 hr/yr pilot, just get married
> and have kids. And, when you're flying all the way from Wisconsin
That's one reason I'm not there yet. Scary.
I dunno, though.. you can still do the breakfast & lunch trips.. take the woman
one week and leave the kids with a sitter.. take the boy the next week.. etc.
> to Florida to see Mickey Mouse, let me assure you that 130kts isn't
> "so bad", and it's even do-able....but, if you're going to fly there
Actually that Cutless RG does 140 true at 9K. Climb is not spectacular,
though. That's what really annoys me about the spam cans. Even the
constant-speed prop doesn't really help.. it's just too heavy for 180hp.
> with kids that are the ages of mine (We did trips at age 1.5/3.5 and
> 2.9/5) after flying a -7, you absolutely won't be happy to do that
> trip in that 172 RG. My #1 reason for building the -10 is that we
> plan to see the U.S. with it, and I know how kids having a bad
> day can make that trip more stressful when it gets to be a long
> day. You want a plane that can fly fast, fly high enough to get
> out of the bumps, and seat the whole family. These days I really
Sounds like those family trips will be quite a blast.
> So, go start the -7A, and enjoy the flying much sooner. That
> will give you time to get that plane completed and once
> you meet the new Mrs. F, (if she has that biological clock ticking)
> you can get started on your empennage and wing kit for the -10
> and be ahead of the game for when you need the seats. Both my
> kids were flying on trips at 5 weeks old or younger. It's
> been a fun ride!
Yeah. I mean, I bought an RV-10 coffee mug so what sense would it make to not
build the airplane?? I really have to do it sooner or later. Else I just
plain wasted the $9 on that mug.
But, another option for the family-cruiser type plane is a partnership. An
RV-10 partnership maybe. That makes a lot of sense for once/month type long
trips. Alternatively, I noticed a share in a 4-owner 310 for sale at the
airport that was surprisingly affordable. Known icing approved and quite a
panel. A 310 could do nicely for long trips too. Almost as fast as an RV-10.
:-) (I fully realize I'm speaking blasphemy here.. I'll stop now.)
Do not archive this stuff please
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Randy #006 latest photos are up |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jim Combs" <jimc@mail.infra-read.com>
Way to go Tim!
Dangle that "you got to get it finished" carrot for the rest of us!
Looks good. Where do the rest of us sign up for OshKosh Rides?
Jim Combs
#40192 (Fuel Tanks)
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I've got Randy's latest photos posted. The wings are now attached and
everything is really coming together. I've also moved his pics around
the site a bit, so some of the old links won't work. Here's a link
to his launch page:
http://www.myrv10.com/N610RV/index.html
Enjoy the photos!
Tim
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=c6IAl+luxdAYPdTQEa/m8YJjhftHlAbs+L2tBYkx0Mg0+N23ToGbZHzGsydNJeHQKRgwXxCn0QjE9y6ebRvz77GdKADlw+j/yIrOtSm6/FQj0+7YiQW8V/Febqseq0c++ZpK70gLAxMsc0lSr3+OsyAGzbqGoOSUaJCLZVxv2eo=
;
| Subject: | Wing kit damaged in shipping |
Hello all,
I picked up my wing kit at the FedEx dock at Salt Lake
City last Friday. It appears that a fork lift pierced
the side of the box! Attached are photos that were
e-mailed to me from the FedEx employee who took them.
I will take my own camera next time just in case. The
box was obviously mishandled. On top and bottom 4 out
of 6 of the 1x2's were ripped off and not to be found.
I suppose the 1x2's served their purpose and took the
damage instead of the remaining box and its contents.
I will finish the inventory tonight. So far damage was
surprisingly minimal, tank baffles bent (shown in
picture) and the edge of the big top wing skin W-1002?
dinged (not pictured). It reminded me of that magic
trick where the magician slides a sword through the
box that his assistant is packed inside.
Steve #40212 working on shipping claim for wings
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Egg Subaru engine. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
All,
For those of you who have talked to Eggenfellner, maybe you could answer
some qusetions for me. The Egg website lists a 3.0 liter boxer engine from
Subaru that makes 178 HP @ 4550 engine RPM and 370 ft/lbs of torque.
Subaru's website lists a 3.0 liter boxer engine that produces 219 ft/lbs of
torque @ 4200 RPM with a max HP of 250 @ 6600 RPM. Forgetting HP for a
moment and for the sake of a better comparison, how is Egg getting 151
ft/lbs of torque more than Subaru from what I assume is the same engine? Do
they modify the engine and in what way? How much torque does a Lycoming
O/IO-540 produce at max? Seems to me torque is more important than HP not
just in amount but where it occurs in the power band. If an engineer were
given the requirements for an aircraft engine and a blank sheet of paper
would he/she design it more like the Subie or a Lycoming? Just asking,
after all part the the building process is education.
John Hasbrouck
#40264
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=ej/P1JloegccotHvRLwqjtJEg7+grNeS/GTmNVr290M2uITYCcetrAs4tOTeU8hb3zyIRZeGLlZmLmYxFwFNjMeFblKoCNyXmtZQRmh592PuAeFiUUhKnEVOV336eLdskuRfli189Yh4XjXVRVLTvlQlSqmiIWVHG48aCj+pnEY=
;
| Subject: | Wing kit damaged in shipping |
Hello all'
I picked up my wing kit last Friday at the Salt Lake
City FedEx dock. The box appears to have been skewered
by a fork lift! Attached are the photos the FedEx
employee E-mailed to me. Next time I will take my own
camera with me just in case. 4 out of 6 of the 1x2's
were ripped off the box. I suppose the 1x2's took the
damage instead of the box and its contents. Damage
includes bent fuel tank rear baffles (pictured) and
dinged large top wing skin, W-10002? It reminds me of
the magic trick where the magician puts his sword
through the box that his assistant is folded up
inside!
Steve #40212 working on damage claim for wings
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Wing kit damaged in shipping |
Be thankful it wasn't UPS, at least 2/3's of the packages I get from them look
like they have been rolled down a SanFran hill first. :-) None of the shippers
really care until they get hit by a bunch of claims. My local FedEx driver
likes to routinely say no one was home to make a delivery. This in spite of
the fact that I would be working from home and they have a standing release to
drop stuff at the front door. They don't even try to lie well anymore.
Michael Sausen
Do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Darton Steve
Subject: RV10-List: Wing kit damaged in shipping
Hello all,
I picked up my wing kit at the FedEx dock at Salt Lake
City last Friday. It appears that a fork lift pierced
the side of the box! Attached are photos that were
e-mailed to me from the FedEx employee who took them.
I will take my own camera next time just in case. The
box was obviously mishandled. On top and bottom 4 out
of 6 of the 1x2's were ripped off and not to be found.
I suppose the 1x2's served their purpose and took the
damage instead of the remaining box and its contents.
I will finish the inventory tonight. So far damage was
surprisingly minimal, tank baffles bent (shown in
picture) and the edge of the big top wing skin W-1002?
dinged (not pictured). It reminded me of that magic
trick where the magician slides a sword through the
box that his assistant is packed inside.
Steve #40212 working on shipping claim for wings
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing kit damaged in shipping |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Hey Steve, don't use that baffle, it will leak ;)
It amazes me when people post their damaged shipping crates and it always seems
that the forklift hit the box right next to the "high value parts" and the $$$$
that Vans puts on the outside. Knock on wood (pun intended) I have not had
any delivery issues and I have had FedEx deliver both kits so far, I hear some
of the other carriers are a total nightmare.
The company that is delivering QB kits I've seen on the Doug Reeves site has a
great concept, too bad you can only save when you get the quickbuild kits as a
whole package but you could save on the crating fees
Do not archive
Rick S.
Wings
40185
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Switching to a 7A |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Paul,
Your right to think out all your options and what fits your needs. I can honestly
say I rehash the reasons for building the RV-10 at least once a month, usually
as I'm updating my builders log, EXPENSE report and BUDGET.
I think once it's completed and flying I will find out that I didn't really need
the SUV version after all. A lot will depend on how much the Mrs. is willing
to travel via GA instead of commercial. One night sleeping in a hanger at an
FBO (I don't see the problem) might change a lot of things.
I really like the building process so I can see myself as a repeat offender in
a few years. Should the -10 prove to be not right for my mission I will sell her
off and order the RV-7 I orginally intended to build. Why the RV-10 in the
first place? Because I was forced ;) to by my significant other because it looked
like a "real" airplane. I was amazed how much that meant to her!!! After
we both flew in the RV-10 (her in the back) she asked which one I was originally
going to build and I pointed to the -7 sitting next to the -10...and I qoute
"THAT LITTLE THING!!!" Don't get me worng I love this airplane but as I look
at the next order (fuselage) and my total for the kit is exceeding the total
cost of the -7 with the finishing kit to go, I can easily see your cost rationale
but heck...it's only money!!! I could live without the jewelry (to be specific-diamonds!)
vs. airplane cost comparisons that pop up occasionally.
do not archive
Rick S.
40185
Wings
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Switching to a 7A |
Jacta alea est . . .
TDT
40025
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Rick
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Switching to a 7A
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Paul,
Your right to think out all your options and what fits your needs. I can honestly
say I rehash the reasons for building the RV-10 at least once a month, usually
as I'm updating my builders log, EXPENSE report and BUDGET.
I think once it's completed and flying I will find out that I didn't really need
the SUV version after all. A lot will depend on how much the Mrs. is willing
to travel via GA instead of commercial. One night sleeping in a hanger at an
FBO (I don't see the problem) might change a lot of things.
I really like the building process so I can see myself as a repeat offender in
a few years. Should the -10 prove to be not right for my mission I will sell her
off and order the RV-7 I orginally intended to build. Why the RV-10 in the
first place? Because I was forced ;) to by my significant other because it looked
like a "real" airplane. I was amazed how much that meant to her!!! After
we both flew in the RV-10 (her in the back) she asked which one I was originally
going to build and I pointed to the -7 sitting next to the -10...and I qoute
"THAT LITTLE THING!!!" Don't get me worng I love this airplane but as I look
at the next order (fuselage) and my total for the kit is exceeding the total
cost of the -7 with the finishing kit to go, I can easily see your cost rationale
but heck...it's only money!!! I could live without the jewelry (to be specific-diamonds!)
vs. airplane cost comparisons that pop up occasionally.
do not archive
Rick S.
40185
Wings
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Egg Subaru engine. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
John Hasbrouck wrote:
> Forgetting HP for a moment and for the sake of a better comparison, how
> is Egg getting 151 ft/lbs of torque more than Subaru from what I assume
> is the same engine? Do they modify the engine and in what way? How
Hi John,
This is my guess, but I believe it has to do with
the gear box reduction that he is using. I think Subaru
is measuring at the engine, Egg is measuring at
the prop mount (after the gear box does its thing).
I do not know this for certain.
-Dj
do not archive
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Egg Subaru engine. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
I asked the same question on both HP and torque, the max HP issue at
prop is less than rated engine HP because of the PSRU and the max engine
RPM that is developed because of the prop limit. So that is why a H6
that has 210HP in the car is rated at 190HP in the plane. As for torque
it was explained the gearing in the PSRU account for the net add, if I
remember right the ratio is around 1.87:1
The interesting thing is that the STI motor with the SC/ intercooler on
it seems to be developing more than 200HP which means it might be a
viable engine for the 10, but better yet Subaru is coming out with a H6
with 250+ which will fall right into the middle of the power curve for
us. I hope it is done in time, as I will be using this engine once it is
available.
I have watched the progress of this engine/FWF package, and the
customers that Jan has to support. It is a great package at an OK price,
and the customer support is outstanding. Sometimes communication does
not happen the way customers expect, as often or as quick, allot of
times I think people are used to the internet and instant communication,
and have unrealistic expectations. If people would remember just 5-10
years ago how long it took to communicate, expectations would be
different, but such is progress. Jan's company is small, and when they
go on vacation, there is not as many available to answer questions on
products, or orders. But conversely to that, there has been many times
builders have asked questions at 3am and had an online response within
minutes. It is all about setting the correct expectations, and allowing
leeway from both sides. Yes, I have seen production slide from expected
delivery dates, but if you build that into your expectations then you
can live with it. Order early and know it will take 4 months longer.
Track history is there, you will get what you ordered and paid for.
I think it is a great package that is getting closer to plug and play
with each new iteration.
Of course I am being verbose because I want the package, but I have
looked at most other options, including doing my own conversion, and it
just does not make sense for me.
YMMV
Dan 40269
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Hasbrouck
Subject: RV10-List: Egg Subaru engine.
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Hasbrouck"
<jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
All,
For those of you who have talked to Eggenfellner, maybe you could
answer
some qusetions for me. The Egg website lists a 3.0 liter boxer engine
from
Subaru that makes 178 HP @ 4550 engine RPM and 370 ft/lbs of torque.
Subaru's website lists a 3.0 liter boxer engine that produces 219 ft/lbs
of
torque @ 4200 RPM with a max HP of 250 @ 6600 RPM. Forgetting HP for a
moment and for the sake of a better comparison, how is Egg getting 151
ft/lbs of torque more than Subaru from what I assume is the same engine?
Do
they modify the engine and in what way? How much torque does a Lycoming
O/IO-540 produce at max? Seems to me torque is more important than HP
not
just in amount but where it occurs in the power band. If an engineer
were
given the requirements for an aircraft engine and a blank sheet of paper
would he/she design it more like the Subie or a Lycoming? Just asking,
after all part the the building process is education.
John Hasbrouck
#40264
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing kit damaged in shipping |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I feel for Steve....if you read my post about my QBfuse/finishing stuff
I got Monday, you'll remember that despite NUMEROUS orange/red arrows
pointing to "UP" and "$" and "GLASS" plastered all over the box, that
some moron who loaded the truck stuck it on end. I opened the box last
night for just a quick peek. Doesn't look like there's any damage that
I can find yet. Thank goodness Van's bolts down the engine mount
stuff in the center. If that had been loosely packed, things would
have been crushed.
And here was my scariest thought while coming home.... I had a QB
fuse, so my wing center section had to be pulled out and shipped
to the Philippines....match drilled set. So if my QB fuse would
have been wrecked, then what??? I can order a new one and wait
MANY MANY month, but now my wing center section (if damaged)
wouldn't match perfectly....so I'd probably have to start
thinking of either rebuilding my wings, or hoping that the matching
was at least close enough. I guess labeling "HIGH CLAIM VALUE"
doesn't scare you when you're making $10/hr loading trucks.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Rick wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
>
> Hey Steve, don't use that baffle, it will leak ;)
>
> It amazes me when people post their damaged shipping crates and it always seems
that the forklift hit the box right next to the "high value parts" and the
$$$$ that Vans puts on the outside. Knock on wood (pun intended) I have not had
any delivery issues and I have had FedEx deliver both kits so far, I hear some
of the other carriers are a total nightmare.
>
> The company that is delivering QB kits I've seen on the Doug Reeves site has
a great concept, too bad you can only save when you get the quickbuild kits as
a whole package but you could save on the crating fees
>
> Do not archive
>
> Rick S.
> Wings
> 40185
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Switching to a 7A |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Actually, I believe that this thread is both interesting and of importance.
Mission is everything in flying, thanks to those damnable laws of physics
and all the compromises that must be made. I went through a long and drawn
out quest several years ago when this bug first bit me. I flew the
Velocity, Lancair IV and ES, RV 7, 8, 9, Glasair, Glastar, even a Searay. I
love low and slow and think that my last plane will be something like the
Sportsman on floats. However, my first choice was to satisfy speed and
responsiveness, and thus I finally settled for the RV-7. It had the speed I
wanted without the expense and risk of the Lancairs. It also seemed fairly
easy to build. Yet I also wanted IFR, and was told that although you could
do IFR in something like an RV-7, it was not recommended, and this by
several RV owners. But, with no RV-10 announced at the time, I figured I'd
go with the RV-7 and put up with the two seats, somewhat cramped quarters
(this bothered me) and flying VFR most of the time. Along came the RV-10,
and it threw me into a Mission tizzy all over again.
So, in my hanger sits an unfinished RV-7 Emp, while I'm now working on an
RV-10 Empcone. But just yesterday I was wondering why on earth I'm building
such an expensive plane when, for 80% of my flying, I'll be either alone or
with only one other on short trips. What happens when I just want to go up
and have some fun? Wouldn't the RV-7 be more appropriate?
The answer for me lies in my flying of the club 182 last year. I liked
having that ability to load it up when I wanted, with either goods or
people. It had all the power I needed, and was easily flown, VFR or IFR.
It was worth the extra bucks in hourly costs, etc. If I'm to have one plane
(and I do believe we should all try to find or develop flying clubs that
have one plane per mission), it needs to fit many missions and the RV-10
does that. Speed, good useful load, room when needed, comfortable, IFR
platform, reasonable operating costs and acquisition costs.
Eventually I'll sell it and have my float plane. The other thing I can
count on for the RV-10 is that it should be easily sold, which is another
consideration.
In the end, it's all about compromise. However, for those out there who are
still trying to decide, try not to get overwhelmed by some never ending
introspective battle on mission. Come up with a date on your calendar that
is your decision date. Give the manufacturer a call on that date with your
order, and then from that point on, enjoy! The building alone will be worth
all the money and time. Then the thrill of flying your baby. If you find
it doesn't get used as much as you thought, sell it and start over. Hell,
it's all in the journey, anyway.
John
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Switching to a 7A
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Paul,
Your right to think out all your options and what fits your needs. I can
honestly say I rehash the reasons for building the RV-10 at least once a
month, usually as I'm updating my builders log, EXPENSE report and BUDGET.
I think once it's completed and flying I will find out that I didn't really
need the SUV version after all. A lot will depend on how much the Mrs. is
willing to travel via GA instead of commercial. One night sleeping in a
hanger at an FBO (I don't see the problem) might change a lot of things.
I really like the building process so I can see myself as a repeat offender
in a few years. Should the -10 prove to be not right for my mission I will
sell her off and order the RV-7 I orginally intended to build. Why the RV-10
in the first place? Because I was forced ;) to by my significant other
because it looked like a "real" airplane. I was amazed how much that meant
to her!!! After we both flew in the RV-10 (her in the back) she asked which
one I was originally going to build and I pointed to the -7 sitting next to
the -10...and I qoute "THAT LITTLE THING!!!" Don't get me worng I love this
airplane but as I look at the next order (fuselage) and my total for the kit
is exceeding the total cost of the -7 with the finishing kit to go, I can
easily see your cost rationale but heck...it's only money!!! I could live
without the jewelry (to be specific-diamonds!) vs. airplane cost comparisons
that pop up occasionally.
do not archive
Rick S.
40185
Wings
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Switching to a 7A |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
YEAH THE DIE IS CAST.....thought I didn't know huh??? :D
Do not archive
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine Options |
spamd4.ruraltel.net
* -2.0 RCVD_FROM_NEXTECH_2 Message came from 24.225.10-29.x network
Eric. Thanks for the info on the TCM 550. I have not made up my mind yet for
a motor as I'm probably 2-3 years from even thinking about needing it (atleast
at the rate I'm building at now). I do want something in the 260 HP range.
There was a post a couple weeks ago that Jans new Egg H6 will produce btwn. 245-255
HP. That's close enough to 260 for me. Anyway, we'll just wait and see
how his new motor does. Hopefully there will be a few flying before I need to
purchase. I like the smoothness, quietness, ability to run high octane pump
gasoline, ease of starting and not having to worry about shock cooling that the
Egg offers. I have not ruled out the air cooled lycs and cont's either. I'm
just looking at all options.
I also hope and think that in the next couple years that there will be more choices
out there for us -10 builders as some of the kits become completed and the
engine companies realize this opportunity.
Bill Britton
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Egg Subaru engine. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jim Combs" <jimc@mail.infra-read.com>
My Guess:
370 Ft/lbs of Torgue = Output of the PSRU gearbox, not engine torgue.
HP would remain constant (Ignoring some loss in the PSRU)
Jim Combs
#40192
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
All,
For those of you who have talked to Eggenfellner, maybe you could answer
some qusetions for me. The Egg website lists a 3.0 liter boxer engine from
Subaru that makes 178 HP @ 4550 engine RPM and 370 ft/lbs of torque.
Subaru's website lists a 3.0 liter boxer engine that produces 219 ft/lbs of
torque @ 4200 RPM with a max HP of 250 @ 6600 RPM. Forgetting HP for a
moment and for the sake of a better comparison, how is Egg getting 151
ft/lbs of torque more than Subaru from what I assume is the same engine? Do
they modify the engine and in what way? How much torque does a Lycoming
O/IO-540 produce at max? Seems to me torque is more important than HP not
just in amount but where it occurs in the power band. If an engineer were
given the requirements for an aircraft engine and a blank sheet of paper
would he/she design it more like the Subie or a Lycoming? Just asking,
after all part the the building process is education.
John Hasbrouck
#40264
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine Options |
I can't wait until Innodyne gets their 255HP turbine in a -10. It's cheaper
than the Lyc, 5,000+ TBO, burns home heating oil (diesel without the taxes)
and should be nice and quiet. The battery and a bunch of other stuff will
probably have to go in the nose, but useful load should go up quite a bit
with a couple of hundred pounds saved in the engine compartment. We'll see
how they do with production engines in the other RV's.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill and Tami
Britton
Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine Options
Eric. Thanks for the info on the TCM 550. I have not made up my mind yet
for a motor as I'm probably 2-3 years from even thinking about needing it
(atleast at the rate I'm building at now). I do want something in the 260
HP range. There was a post a couple weeks ago that Jans new Egg H6 will
produce btwn. 245-255 HP. That's close enough to 260 for me. Anyway, we'll
just wait and see how his new motor does. Hopefully there will be a few
flying before I need to purchase. I like the smoothness, quietness, ability
to run high octane pump gasoline, ease of starting and not having to worry
about shock cooling that the Egg offers. I have not ruled out the air
cooled lycs and cont's either. I'm just looking at all options.
I also hope and think that in the next couple years that there will be more
choices out there for us -10 builders as some of the kits become completed
and the engine companies realize this opportunity.
Bill Britton
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Engine Options |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
Along with useful load, insurance should go up too?
-Sean #40303 (Emp done -paint, waiting for wing kit)
Jesse Saint wrote:
> I cant wait until Innodyne gets their 255HP turbine in a -10. Its
> cheaper than the Lyc, 5,000+ TBO, burns home heating oil (diesel
> without the taxes) and should be nice and quiet. The battery and a
> bunch of other stuff will probably have to go in the nose, but useful
> load should go up quite a bit with a couple of hundred pounds saved in
> the engine compartment. Well see how they do with production engines
> in the other RVs.
>
> Jesse Saint
>
> I-TEC, Inc.
>
> jesse@itecusa.org <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
>
> www.itecusa.org <http://www.itecusa.org>
>
> W: 352-465-4545
>
> C: 352-427-0285
>
> F: 815-377-3694
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Switching to a 7A |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
My wife doesn't like the two seaters either - too small and claustrophobic
for her. Regardless what they say, size really does matter ;-).
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Switching to a 7A
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Paul,
Your right to think out all your options and what fits your needs. I can
honestly say I rehash the reasons for building the RV-10 at least once a
month, usually as I'm updating my builders log, EXPENSE report and BUDGET.
I think once it's completed and flying I will find out that I didn't really
need the SUV version after all. A lot will depend on how much the Mrs. is
willing to travel via GA instead of commercial. One night sleeping in a
hanger at an FBO (I don't see the problem) might change a lot of things.
I really like the building process so I can see myself as a repeat offender
in a few years. Should the -10 prove to be not right for my mission I will
sell her off and order the RV-7 I orginally intended to build. Why the RV-10
in the first place? Because I was forced ;) to by my significant other
because it looked like a "real" airplane. I was amazed how much that meant
to her!!! After we both flew in the RV-10 (her in the back) she asked which
one I was originally going to build and I pointed to the -7 sitting next to
the -10...and I qoute "THAT LITTLE THING!!!" Don't get me worng I love this
airplane but as I look at the next order (fuselage) and my total for the kit
is exceeding the total cost of the -7 with the finishing kit to go, I can
easily see your cost rationale but heck...it's only money!!! I could live
without the jewelry (to be specific-diamonds!) vs. airplane cost comparisons
that pop up occasionally.
do not archive
Rick S.
40185
Wings
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Engine Options |
Jesse,
Everything I have read and heard about Innodyne leads me to believe
that this will never happen.
Jeff Carpenter
40304
On Apr 27, 2005, at 2:34 PM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> I can=92t wait until Innodyne gets their 255HP turbine in a -10.=A0 It=92s
> cheaper than the Lyc, 5,000+ TBO, burns home heating oil (diesel
> without the taxes) and should be nice and quiet.=A0 The battery and a
> bunch of other stuff will probably have to go in the nose, but useful
> load should go up quite a bit with a couple of hundred pounds saved in
> the engine compartment.=A0 We=92ll see how they do with production engines
> in the other RV=92s.
>
> Jesse Saint
> I-TEC, Inc.
> jesse@itecusa.org
> www.itecusa.org
> W: 352-465-4545
> C: 352-427-0285
> F:=A0815-377-3694
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill and
> Tami Britton
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 3:46 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine Options
>
> Eric.=A0 Thanks for the info on the TCM 550.=A0 I have not made up my mind
> yet for a motor as I'm probably 2-3 years from even thinking about
> needing it (atleast at the rate I'm building at now).=A0 I do want
> something in the 260 HP range.=A0 There was a post a couple weeks ago
> that Jans new Egg H6 will produce btwn. 245-255 HP.=A0 That's close
> enough to 260 for me.=A0 Anyway, we'll just wait and see how his new
> motor does.=A0 Hopefully there will be a few flying before I need to
> purchase.=A0 I like the smoothness, quietness, ability to run high
> octane pump gasoline, ease of starting and not having to worry about
> shock cooling that the Egg offers.=A0 I have not=A0ruled out=A0the air
> cooled lycs and cont's either.=A0 I'm just looking at all options.
>
> I also hope and think that in the next couple years that there will be
> more choices out there for us -10 builders as some of the kits become
> completed and the engine companies realize this opportunity.
>
> Bill Britton
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-10 Engine choices |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Also looked at Jan's engines, visited his place and was very impressed but
bought a Lyc anyway. Just a thought! Everyone is down on Lyc because the
technology is the same every year, and everyone likes the Subaru because the
technology is current. BUT,... No one will ever have the most current
because Jan is re-inventing every year as new model engines come out. This
is good but also means that almost everyone is flying last years model and
potentially disappointed or elated depending on that years conversion
package assuming continuous engine improvement from Subaru.
I would think that if you ordered one of the H6 180-190hps last year and it
was being shipped this year while the 210-220 H6 was being introduced, you
might feel slighted but that is the nature of continuous improvement. You
pays your money and takes your chances. Since Jan must purchase the new
engines up front, you can't expect him to continually allow upgrades without
figuring out how to get rid of the engines that were not taken but committed
for.
BTW, never heard of one of Jan's packages going for less than 15K so don't
know what the reference earlier to a 10K disappointment would be about. My
impression is that Jan would have taken care of it.
Just a thought!
Bill S
7a Ark
-----Original Message-----
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
To all of the people who are looking at Eggenfellner engines, I don't
want to cause big waves, but you might be interested in another
viewpoint. Many people have good comments about them, and I've heard
a few who have bad opinions. I just happen to belong to the an EAA
chapter with a current RV-9 builder who isn't so happy with them.
In fact, I believe there is a lawsuit going on. From what I got out
of the story, Egg sold him an engine for his -9 with claims of something
like 170hp or so, but in the end, the guy found out from other builders
that it was really some extremely low HP model. Even Egg admitted later
to the HP discrepency. The guy also told me that the engine also
doesn't have all the stuff it needs to run, so it'll never fly.
He called Egg numerous times, and ended up being hung-up on. If
my memory of the situation is right, they actually dropped that engine
model and now have more powerful ones. All he was looking for was for
them to take the engine back, and give him credit towards one of the
newer ones that really did have the claimed HP ratings, but they
weren't willing to do much of anything about it.
It just surprised me because there are a lot of people who seem to
like either their theory, their engines, or maybe the fact that they're
just not Lycomings, but when I heard this guy's story, I know it
left an impression on me. I'm not saying that builders shouldn't
go that route, but, if you do go with any alternate engines, (or for
that matter, ANY engine) I'd make sure you ask a lot of questions
and get some good info up front. I believe the guy I know said he's
out over $10,000 for basically nothing, and he's now so turned off
by the thing that unless they sent him the right engine, he's going
Lycoming. He said if he could do it all over, he'd have just gone
that route up front.
Take it all with a grain of salt, but it's one more data point.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Bill and Tami Britton wrote:
> I know this whole engine choice thing has already been hashed over, but
> I have to wonder if anybody has given any thought to the 245-255 HP
> Subaru H-6 that Jan Eggenfellner is supposedly working on. I was
> completely sold on the Egg motors when I was going to build a -7. Then
> I switched to a -10 and unfortunately none of his motors that he
> currently produces are in the HP range I'm looking for. Earlier this
> year he stated that he thought they'd be releasing them in late 2005.
> However, I've not heard anything else about them since then. Perhaps
> some of you guys that made it to Sun'n'Fun might have seen or heard
> something related to this engine???
>
> I know that there are those of you who only believe that Lycomings or
> Continentals are the only engines that should be used in planes but I
> have several reasons why I'd use the H-6 package if it looks good.
>
> I suppose in the end I'll probably end up with an (I)0-540 but just
> curious what others are thinking on the whole alternative engine thing.
>
> Also, I'm very interested in the Deltahawk, but they need to get their
> stuff together pretty quick because I think they require different
> venting in the tank. (Not to mention a larger fill hole and cap to
> accomodate the larger nozzles that most JetA pumps have) Any other
> thoughts on this???
>
> Thanks,
> Bill Britton
> RV-10 Emp #40137
> VERRRRRYYY Slowly riveting HS
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Switching to a 7A |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Steve Eberhart <steve@newtech.com>
McGANN, Ron wrote:
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
>
>My wife doesn't like the two seaters either - too small and claustrophobic
>for her. Regardless what they say, size really does matter ;-).
>
>Ron
>
>
I took my wife to a KR flyin. When she looked down into the canopy of
one she headed back to the car. We are building an RV-7A and she is
quite content with the "large" size.
Steve Eberhart
RV-7A, working on wings
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing kit damaged in shipping |
1.72 MSGID_FROM_MTA_ID Message-Id for external message added locally
...And here was my scariest thought while coming home.... I had a QB
fuse, so my wing center section had to be pulled out and shipped
to the Philippines....match drilled set. So if my QB fuse would
have been wrecked, then what??? I can order a new one and wait
MANY MANY month, but now my wing center section (if damaged)
wouldn't match perfectly....
I am picking up my QB fuse this Friday from Van's. This is after I already
past up two earlier offers to receive earlier shipments.
According to Van's the RV-10 spar centers all interchangeable.
Robin Wessel
Tigard, OR
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Engine choices |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Mike Comeaux" <mcomeaux@bendnet.com>
Tim, A friend of mine Ken that owned a RV6-A with a 160 Lyc pulled and put a
Egg motor
in and was totally pissed at customer support & product. As far as I know to
this day he
still has unresolved business with this Eggenfeller bunch.....Mike
---- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> To all of the people who are looking at Eggenfellner engines, I don't
> want to cause big waves, but you might be interested in another
> viewpoint. Many people have good comments about them, and I've heard
> a few who have bad opinions. I just happen to belong to the an EAA
> chapter with a current RV-9 builder who isn't so happy with them.
> In fact, I believe there is a lawsuit going on. From what I got out
> of the story, Egg sold him an engine for his -9 with claims of something
> like 170hp or so, but in the end, the guy found out from other builders
> that it was really some extremely low HP model. Even Egg admitted later
> to the HP discrepency. The guy also told me that the engine also
> doesn't have all the stuff it needs to run, so it'll never fly.
>
> He called Egg numerous times, and ended up being hung-up on. If
> my memory of the situation is right, they actually dropped that engine
> model and now have more powerful ones. All he was looking for was for
> them to take the engine back, and give him credit towards one of the
> newer ones that really did have the claimed HP ratings, but they
> weren't willing to do much of anything about it.
>
> It just surprised me because there are a lot of people who seem to
> like either their theory, their engines, or maybe the fact that they're
> just not Lycomings, but when I heard this guy's story, I know it
> left an impression on me. I'm not saying that builders shouldn't
> go that route, but, if you do go with any alternate engines, (or for
> that matter, ANY engine) I'd make sure you ask a lot of questions
> and get some good info up front. I believe the guy I know said he's
> out over $10,000 for basically nothing, and he's now so turned off
> by the thing that unless they sent him the right engine, he's going
> Lycoming. He said if he could do it all over, he'd have just gone
> that route up front.
>
> Take it all with a grain of salt, but it's one more data point.
>
> Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> Bill and Tami Britton wrote:
>> I know this whole engine choice thing has already been hashed over, but I
>> have to wonder if anybody has given any thought to the 245-255 HP Subaru
>> H-6 that Jan Eggenfellner is supposedly working on. I was completely
>> sold on the Egg motors when I was going to build a -7. Then I switched
>> to a -10 and unfortunately none of his motors that he currently produces
>> are in the HP range I'm looking for. Earlier this year he stated that he
>> thought they'd be releasing them in late 2005. However, I've not heard
>> anything else about them since then. Perhaps some of you guys that made
>> it to Sun'n'Fun might have seen or heard something related to this
>> engine???
>> I know that there are those of you who only believe that Lycomings or
>> Continentals are the only engines that should be used in planes but I
>> have several reasons why I'd use the H-6 package if it looks good.
>> I suppose in the end I'll probably end up with an (I)0-540 but just
>> curious what others are thinking on the whole alternative engine thing.
>> Also, I'm very interested in the Deltahawk, but they need to get their
>> stuff together pretty quick because I think they require different
>> venting in the tank. (Not to mention a larger fill hole and cap to
>> accomodate the larger nozzles that most JetA pumps have) Any other
>> thoughts on this???
>> Thanks,
>> Bill Britton
>> RV-10 Emp #40137
>> VERRRRRYYY Slowly riveting HS
>
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Engine choices |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I knew from hearing some stories that my friend wasn't alone too.
I'm not down on Egg or the engines at all. Never cared to
investigate them, myself. I don't know exactly how much that
guy I know from EAA is out....$10K, $15K, $20K...I didn't ask
the exact amount. All I know is that he's one very unhappy customer.
For those who love the engines, and/or have had good luck, I think
that's fantastic. The company definitely has a place in the
industry. I just would take any promises about engines from some
of those suppliers with a grain of salt unless they put everything
in writing....and that includes most any alternatative engine
company.
I myself would have loved to be a diesel buyer, but I'm not flying
one until I've heard a LOT more positive experience. Some are
adventurous, some, like me, just want to stick to at least some
"known" products. Who knows, some day I might swap for a turbine,
but not until there are a couple hundred flying successfully.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Mike Comeaux wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Mike Comeaux" <mcomeaux@bendnet.com>
>
> Tim, A friend of mine Ken that owned a RV6-A with a 160 Lyc pulled and
> put a Egg motor
> in and was totally pissed at customer support & product. As far as I
> know to this day he
> still has unresolved business with this Eggenfeller bunch.....Mike
> ---- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 6:25 AM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Engine choices
>
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>>
>> To all of the people who are looking at Eggenfellner engines, I don't
>> want to cause big waves, but you might be interested in another
>> viewpoint. Many people have good comments about them, and I've heard
>> a few who have bad opinions. I just happen to belong to the an EAA
>> chapter with a current RV-9 builder who isn't so happy with them.
>> In fact, I believe there is a lawsuit going on. From what I got out
>> of the story, Egg sold him an engine for his -9 with claims of something
>> like 170hp or so, but in the end, the guy found out from other builders
>> that it was really some extremely low HP model. Even Egg admitted later
>> to the HP discrepency. The guy also told me that the engine also
>> doesn't have all the stuff it needs to run, so it'll never fly.
>>
>> He called Egg numerous times, and ended up being hung-up on. If
>> my memory of the situation is right, they actually dropped that engine
>> model and now have more powerful ones. All he was looking for was for
>> them to take the engine back, and give him credit towards one of the
>> newer ones that really did have the claimed HP ratings, but they
>> weren't willing to do much of anything about it.
>>
>> It just surprised me because there are a lot of people who seem to
>> like either their theory, their engines, or maybe the fact that they're
>> just not Lycomings, but when I heard this guy's story, I know it
>> left an impression on me. I'm not saying that builders shouldn't
>> go that route, but, if you do go with any alternate engines, (or for
>> that matter, ANY engine) I'd make sure you ask a lot of questions
>> and get some good info up front. I believe the guy I know said he's
>> out over $10,000 for basically nothing, and he's now so turned off
>> by the thing that unless they sent him the right engine, he's going
>> Lycoming. He said if he could do it all over, he'd have just gone
>> that route up front.
>>
>> Take it all with a grain of salt, but it's one more data point.
>>
>> Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
>>
>> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>>
>>
>> Bill and Tami Britton wrote:
>>
>>> I know this whole engine choice thing has already been hashed over,
>>> but I have to wonder if anybody has given any thought to the 245-255
>>> HP Subaru H-6 that Jan Eggenfellner is supposedly working on. I was
>>> completely sold on the Egg motors when I was going to build a -7.
>>> Then I switched to a -10 and unfortunately none of his motors that he
>>> currently produces are in the HP range I'm looking for. Earlier this
>>> year he stated that he thought they'd be releasing them in late
>>> 2005. However, I've not heard anything else about them since then.
>>> Perhaps some of you guys that made it to Sun'n'Fun might have seen or
>>> heard something related to this engine???
>>> I know that there are those of you who only believe that Lycomings
>>> or Continentals are the only engines that should be used in planes
>>> but I have several reasons why I'd use the H-6 package if it looks good.
>>> I suppose in the end I'll probably end up with an (I)0-540 but just
>>> curious what others are thinking on the whole alternative engine thing.
>>> Also, I'm very interested in the Deltahawk, but they need to get
>>> their stuff together pretty quick because I think they require
>>> different venting in the tank. (Not to mention a larger fill hole
>>> and cap to accomodate the larger nozzles that most JetA pumps have)
>>> Any other thoughts on this???
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bill Britton
>>> RV-10 Emp #40137
>>> VERRRRRYYY Slowly riveting HS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | re: engine options |
I would love to see a turboprop engine for experimentals; however the cheap solution
is not going to happen. The most recent explanation I have seen of the Innodyne
which was ATP before that is that it is a rework of a Solarz APU. These
APUs are designed or a high constant turbine RPM with commensurate fuel flows.
It appears to be very much like the APU powering the Luscomb here in AZ. fuel
flow was the same whether you are using max power or idle. Thrust is controlled
by adjusting the pitch of the prop. Hopefully without going to Beta. We
had a Walter in a Lancair 4P burn after a flat spin after inadvertently getting
into Beta in flight.
Some other considerations: Any money saved by purchasing an alternative engine
will be cancelled by the increased costs in time and money to "engineer" the FF
package.
Read the accident reports. Most experimental aircraft (kits) crashes involve power
failure in some form.
Even if your install is good, insurance will be expensive or unavailable.
Consider resale. If someone is going to buy your aircraft sometime later. Which
aircraft will sell easily at a good price? One where there are thousands of
like engines operating or where there is a population of 50-100.
Having flown my Glastar around for some time, Most FBOs will not want to touch
your experimental for any maintenance. You might get them to work on a Lycoming
or TCM but good luck on Innodyne or others.
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
All the discussions I have had with Van's is that any QB wing will match any QB
fuselage.
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Wing kit damaged in shipping |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Rene" <rene@felker.com>
I just got mine delivered last week....to Ogden. They took the end off the
spar box, but so far I have not found any damage. I received it Friday
afternoon right before I went to Oregon for a couple of days off. I just
got back this afternoon and was able to open the box and do some checking.
I do not know about these guys.....Fedx.
Got a ride in the -10 while I was in Oregon....I will provide a full report
later. It may not be much, I was like a kid in a candy store, I ate a lot
but can't remember what I ate.
Rene'
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Darton Steve
Subject: RV10-List: Wing kit damaged in shipping
Hello all'
I picked up my wing kit last Friday at the Salt Lake
City FedEx dock. The box appears to have been skewered
by a fork lift! Attached are the photos the FedEx
employee E-mailed to me. Next time I will take my own
camera with me just in case. 4 out of 6 of the 1x2's
were ripped off the box. I suppose the 1x2's took the
damage instead of the box and its contents. Damage
includes bent fuel tank rear baffles (pictured) and
dinged large top wing skin, W-10002? It reminds me of
the magic trick where the magician puts his sword
through the box that his assistant is folded up
inside!
Steve #40212 working on damage claim for wings
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|