Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:29 AM - Re: Re: Weight & Balance scan (Tim Olson)
2. 05:31 AM - Re: Too Quiet for the Weekend (Tim Olson)
3. 05:33 AM - Re: Re: Switching to a 7A (Wayne Edgerton)
4. 05:36 AM - Re: Re: Switching to a 7A (Tim Olson)
5. 05:52 AM - Re: reports from my trip to vans, and joining the madness (Tim Olson)
6. 09:59 AM - QB fuselage (David McNeill)
7. 10:37 AM - Re: reports from my trip to vans, and joining the madness (Mike Brogley)
8. 01:19 PM - Re: QB fuselage (Tim Olson)
9. 04:36 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition, etc. (Jesse Saint)
10. 06:32 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition, etc. (Wayne Edgerton)
11. 06:55 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition, etc. (owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto)
12. 06:56 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition, etc. (Jesse Saint)
13. 07:25 PM - Re: Electronic Ignition, etc. (Wayne Edgerton)
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: RE: Weight & Balance scan |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Did you ever think that maybe those weren't OCR errors? I can see
how if you were a frog farmer who hauls around froglegs for distro
that you'd want as much "useful toad" as you can get. And, if you
were using it to drop hay bales on your ranch for your herd, you'd
probably want to always make sure you're within the "grass weight
limits." Maybe that was how it was suppsed to read... ;)
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Tim Dawson-Townsend wrote:
>
> I found some humerous "almost correct" words in that OCR-scanned
> weight and balance information:
>
> "Increased empty weight will decrease useful toad;"
>
> "remain within grass weight limits."
>
> he he
>
> TDT 40025
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Wayne
> Edgerton Sent: Fri 4/29/2005 8:12 PM To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
>
>
> I'm not sure how close you are to completing your project but you
> might want to take a look at the following web site for E Mag
> Electronic Ignition.
>
> http://www.emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
>
> They currently aren't able to supply these for the 540 but I talked
> to them and they say it's one of their high priorities to get it
> ready for the 540. It appears to be a very straight forward system
> and solves a lot of problems.
>
> I'm not the greatest mechanic, so I've been asking people who are a
> lot better than me about elec ignition. I was told that the Light
> Speed is complicated to install. The LASAR was easier to install with
> more advantages but as you noted much more expensive.
>
> I talked to Bart at AeroSport engines about elec ignition and he
> recommended, for what my needs are for my 10, that the Light Speed
> Plasma II Plus would be what I should use if I chose Light Speed.
> They say you will have better performance, because of hotter spark,
> better fuel efficiency and starting and your spark plugs will
> supposedly last longer.
>
> Again my disclaimer on all of this is I'm currently in the research
> and learning mode so read my thoughts with that in mind.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesse Saint
> <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org> To: rv10-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday,
> April 29, 2005 4:52 PM Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
>
>
> We are trying to decide whether we get our MAG's rebuilt or to
> replace one with a Lightspeed. The LASAR electronic ignition is a
> little on the expensive and complicated side, so we would rather stay
> away from that.
>
>
>
> What are the benefits of the Lightspeed? Which model would you
> recommend? What kind of added performance can we expect on the
> IO-540? How complicated is the installation?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Jesse Saint
>
> I-TEC, Inc.
>
> jesse@itecusa.org
>
> www.itecusa.org
>
> W: 352-465-4545
>
> C: 352-427-0285
>
> F: 815-377-3694
>
>
>
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: Too Quiet for the Weekend |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I think that Excel spreadsheets must not be one of the types of files
that the system can handle. I remember he said there were a few
specific file types. Oh well. If you want, I could post it on
my site.
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Tim Dawson-Townsend wrote:
>
> Since it's so quiet, I typed in some of the numbers from the Weight &
> Balance information into the attached spreadsheet. The second page
> calculates your empty cg based on scale weights. The front sheet
> does some weight & balance and has a simple graph of cg envelope and
> gross weight. Enjoy!
>
> TDT 40025
>
>
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: Switching to a 7A |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter@grandecom.net>
I would guess liability. If you say it's not for IFR and someone flies IFR
and has a mishap they can put their hands up and say "Don't look at me, I
told them not to do it" The only other reason I can think of is that
possible many at Vans people are not instrument pilots. I talked to Ken at
Vans and he said he doesn't see why anyone even needs a attitude indicator,
you can just look out the window, which says he only thinks as a VFR pilot.
I guess to some life is much simpler and safer in VFR conditions. I can see
that logic but you're probably going to be setting on the ground waiting to
get somewhere a lot more times.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Folbrecht" <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Switching to a 7A
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
>
> Can't do IFR in a 7A? Well, Van's will not "endorse" IFR flying in any RV
> *including the 10*. Many people fly 6's and 7's IFR. The only difference
> between one of those and a 10 is the 10's somewhat better "stability".. if
> you're spending too much time on the stick in IMC, put the AP on.
>
> I'm curious as to what the reasoning was of the anti-IFR RV owners.
>
>
> Time: 12:39:29 PM PST US
> From: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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
>
>
>
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: Switching to a 7A |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
From my RV-6 ride I took a while back, I think that the responsiveness
is just so super high on some of those planes that unless the IFR
is pretty light, it could get to be a real handful fast. An IFR
flight, in turbulence, with low ceilings would be a pretty hard
approach in something like the 6/7/8 I'd presume. You can't move
that stick very far without it being an overcorrection. You're right
about the autopilot though....that might be the only way to really
make it a flyable approach on those types of days. I was really
concerned that the RV-10 would be too close to the other RV's in
handling. My Sundowner is/was a beautifuly plane to fly approaches in,
and it's pretty responsive...I wouldn't want much more for light
controls than that.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
>
> Can't do IFR in a 7A? Well, Van's will not "endorse" IFR flying in any RV
> *including the 10*. Many people fly 6's and 7's IFR. The only difference
> between one of those and a 10 is the 10's somewhat better "stability".. if
> you're spending too much time on the stick in IMC, put the AP on.
>
> I'm curious as to what the reasoning was of the anti-IFR RV owners.
>
>
> Time: 12:39:29 PM PST US
> From: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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
>
>
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 |
|
;) [long post]
| Subject: | Re: reports from my trip to vans, and joining the madness |
;) [long post]
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
What a great trip! Yeah, didn't have to go to a motel 6 when I was
up there....I stayed at the same "Motel 10" that you did. ;) John's
a great guy to have as a Portland area guide....he knows the people,
he knows the companies, and he knows his stuff. Looks like we both
got some of the same feelings about the -10 too. I think it was
right before that trip that I went and got my HP signoff in a 182RG.
I had complex from time in a sierra before, but at 200hp, it wasn't
"over" 200hp, so I still needed the HP. So far, the best plane I've
found for W&B...not in the loading category, but the weight
distribution, is the Sundowner. It doesn't run out of elevator as
bad as the -10, but is pretty nose heavy in the same situation, but
it has something like a 250lb baggage limit, and you can feel free
to thow passengers and bags in the back...it's really hard to get
into a rearward CG situation in that plane.
I usually will be flying with 4 full seats in the -10 anyway, so
I figure I'll be just fine. I'm getting by with lead shot ballast
right now. I was kind of wondering if it wouldn't be a smart
idea for a builder to actually make an access door in the rear
baggage floor of the -10 so that you could toss in a bag of shot
and have it under the floor. Would keep it clean, and I don't see
why it would hurt to have it laying on the actual bottom skin itself,
secured from flying about by the lid over top of it. A couple of
camloc screws to secure it would be about right.
Now that I have my fuse, I can start measuring and dreaming.
I am putting a small secondary battery in the system too, just
to keep the lightspeed ignition alive. I may put that under the
rear floor too if it looks like there's a good fit.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
DO NOT ARCHIVE
James Ochs wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Just got home from my trip up to Vans this week. What a Blast!
>
>
>
> I decided to rent the 182T at my local FBO, hijack my instructor (of
> course, once I told him that we were going to visit Vans and take a demo
> ride in the -10 there wasnt much hijacking about it one of the guys
> at the FBO has built two Vans) and do my long x-country for my IFR
> ticket during the trip So during this trip I got a lot of firsts in:
>
>
>
> 1) first time in high performance aircraft ( I had complex since
> I started training in the katana w/ a variable pitch prop)
>
> 2) first time flying out of California
>
> 3) first real x-country under IFR
>
> 4) first time riding in a Vans
>
>
>
> I wound up with 9.2 hours of x-country time and got that long x-country
> requirement out of the way, and even got somewhere around 1.5 hours of
> actual on the flight(s).
>
>
>
> The 182 was giving us about 140kts true and climb rates in the
> neighborhood of 7 800 fpm (of course we werent really pushing it to
> see what the climb rates were. At 140kts cruise and 6 7000 we were
> seeing fuel flow rates in the neighborhood of 13 or 14 gph.
>
>
>
> So jumped into 410RV with Ken as the pilot. We taxied over to the fuel
> island and he filled the tanks (he had flown several flights that day
> and it was getting low ;). In taking the active he turned to centerline
> and gave it full throttle. I think the roll was something in the
> neighborhood of 300 before we were airborne. It may have been a little
> longer, or a little shorter, I was kind of busy with trying to peel
> myself out of the seat at the time. You really feel that thrust when
> you go to full power with that lyco up there. Looking at the VSI we
> were getting almost 1500/min nearly immediately. That tells me you can
> get out of some REALLY short fields ;)
>
>
>
> A couple of minutes later we were at 3000 and he put it into (I think)
> about a 55% power cruise and we were doing ~160 MPH with a fuel flow of
> 10 11 gph. We then did a few turns left and right, and he turned the
> controls over to me. One thing I had a lot of trouble with in the plane
> at first is that the visibility is so good over the nose that the sight
> picture makes you immediately put the plane in a climb. And boy does it
> climb. That plane can get away from you fast
>
>
>
> Next he did some steep turns and rolled directly from steep turns to the
> left to turns to the right and back. The plane just rolled in and out
> and back and forth with no complaining or weirdness or slop in the
> transitions. It was just amazingly responsive.
>
>
>
> The next step was slow flight, and the controls forces are very light
> compared to the 182, even in slow flight. Very good aileron response
> even at very low airspeeds. He then took it to the edge of the stall
> and the buffeting was very pronounced. There were only two of us in the
> airplane and he was able to only get it to barely break into a stall
> with two on board. I think that while its a good thing for a four seat
> x-country plane to be difficult to stall it does kind of indicate that
> there might be a small problem that Ill get to in a second
>
>
>
> The last part of the flight was bringing the airplane up to cruise from
> 160MPH. Ken advanced the throttle and, and once again, I had to peel
> myself out of the seat. It took about 60 seconds to accelerate to
> 200MPH and it looked like fuel flow was in the neighborhood of 13GPH.
> This plane just kicked the crap out of the 182 on about every front.
> Ken throttled back and let me fly to the downwind in the pattern
> (although I think he was a little annoyed because I tend to be pretty
> conservative when Im at the controls of a new machine ;) Once again I
> did have some issues with the sight picture as far as maintaining
> straight and level, but I think if I had an hour or two in the plane
> that would not be an issue. It is really due to the fact that the
> visibility out the front is just incredible it is much better than in
> the 182/172s and very comparable to the visibility out the canopy of the
> Katana.
>
>
>
> On downwind, Ken once again took over and brought the plane in to land.
> Approach speeds were in the low 60s and the landing was very smooth.
> The problem that I alluded to earlier was that it seems with two people
> that it is difficult to get the nose up to the point where the stall
> happens as a corollary I noticed that ken had both hands on the stick
> and it was pulled fully back in the flare. I dont think there was
> much, if any elevator left. Roll out was pretty standard and he didnt
> use much brake, just kept the elevator back and let the speed bleed off.
>
>
>
> One thing that I asked about, and liked the answer to, is that he needed
> very little braking for taxi. The prop wash on the rudder is adequate
> to perform most normal steering maneuvers on the ground and you only
> need a touch of brakes for the tight turns. This also indicates that
> there is very good rudder authority at low airspeeds. On the flip side,
> you need very very little rudder during normal flight.
>
>
>
> So those of you who were paying attention will notice that I said that
> my instructor was going to ride with us in the -10 and then later
> mentioned that there were only Ken and I in the plane during the demo
> flight My instructor decided that since he was there he was going to do
> a demo in the 9A instead ;) Hes pretty fired up about helping me to
> build and I think we may have another RV builder shortly ;)
>
>
>
> Well, once out of the plane I went directly to the car, grabbed the
> order form I had filled out two weeks ago and marched straight up to the
> front desk. After taking the form and running the credit card, she came
> back with a copy of my order form, told me it would be about 10 14
> days before the emp kit showed up at my door and gave me my builder
> number -- 40400. I was wondering when they were going to hit 400 ;)
>
>
>
> As far as the elevator authority problem is concerned I think it is
> pretty easily solved by using ballast if there are only two people in
> the plane. If you dont already have baggage in the baggage
> compartment, just drop a couple of bags of shot in there and it should
> help with the balance. A little bit of a pia, but I think a very small
> price to pay for the performance you get out of the plane. The other
> problem people have noticed with weight and balance is the example in
> the W&B sheets that were posted the other day with the aft cg being a
> bit past the limit with 5 gallons of fuel and four people and 150lbs of
> baggage. While I could see getting to this point, I am not sure that it
> is smart flying in the first place 150 lbs of baggage is the supposed
> structural limit of the floor, so thats about as much as you can put
> back there, and, in my plane at least, the pilot hasnt seen 170lbs in
> quite some time ;), so I do see that it is not totally out of the
> question to get that aft loading. The thing that strikes me as not
> smart is that at a 12 13 gph fuel burn in normal cruise if all you
> have in the tanks is 5 gallons you are really starting to push the 30
> minutes of fuel requirements, and you are basically busted on the IFR
> requirements. Personally, Im getting pretty nervous if I am down to an
> hours worth of fuel, but that is just me. As such, it is just a
> question of being aware of what the limits are and adhering to them. As
> a comparison point for certified, if you put four people into a 172SP
> and fill the tanks you are most likely over gross and definitely at a CG
> that is way aft of the limit in the 182, you are within 2 of the aft
> cg with 4 standard people and full fuel and 150 lbs of baggage. I am
> guessing that with the -10 that the fuel is pretty much ahead of the cg
> and in the 182 its right on the cg. So maybe that is one point in favor
> of the 182, but I dont think it makes up for the performance
> characteristics of the 10. John Cox had a good suggestion to fix it
> use a depleted U-238 disk for a prop spinner ;) Seriously, if it does
> turn out to be a problem once a few of these are flying I will probably
> figure out some sort of ballast to compensate if possible. If not, then
> its just a question of knowing the limits and adhering to them.
>
>
>
> I have to say that the visit to Vans and the demo flight was maybe 25%
> of what I got out of my trip up there. I have to say that it was
> awesome to have John drive us around and introduce us to a large number
> of builders on the airport, including several who were in various stages
> of projects other than Vans. Especially thanks to Randy for letting us
> poke and prod at his -10 and between my instructor and I, I believe we
> probably logged at least .5 hours of hangar flying ;) It was a big help
> to see the various stages people were in too. Another builder on the
> airport is building a 9 and spent a couple of hours just chatting with
> us and showing us what he was doing (he was working on the control
> linkages for the fuse) and letting us ask lots of questions and be
> generally nosy. I was really attracted to building a vans just by the
> community I saw on the mailing list, and now that I have met a number of
> you, I have to say that the list doesnt even begin to describe how
> great the community is. So again, thanks to everybody for everything
> you did for us while we were up there!!!
>
>
>
> James Ochs, #40400
>
> (im)patiently waiting on the emp kit
>
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 |
|
Anyone try to remove the front floors that are temp riveted in place? My kit arrived
with the gear weldments in place but the forward support was not match drilled
to the floor and Z channel beneath it nor were nutplates installed. As
a result to follow the plans one would have to remove the gear weldment (which
will be a daunting task) to remove the floor.
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 |
|
;) [long post]
| Subject: | Re: reports from my trip to vans, and joining the madness |
;) [long post]
--> RV10-List message posted by: Mike Brogley <mikebrogley@ieee.org>
Great trip report.
Just a datapoint from the spam-can world, but on the elevator issue I
recall being drafted as human ballast to sit in the back seat of a Piper
Saratoga so the CFI could get a good stall out of the thing - with just
pilot and instructor up front they could pull full up elevator all day
long and not get a break.
--
Mike
James Ochs wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just got home from my trip up to Vans this week. What a Blast!
>
> I decided to rent the 182T at my local FBO, hijack my instructor (of
> course, once I told him that we were going to visit Vans and take a
> demo ride in the -10 there wasnt much hijacking about it one of
> the guys at the FBO has built two Vans) and do my long x-country for
> my IFR ticket during the trip So during this trip I got a lot of
> firsts in:
>
> 1) first time in high performance aircraft ( I had complex since I
> started training in the katana w/ a variable pitch prop)
>
> 2) first time flying out of California
>
> 3) first real x-country under IFR
>
> 4) first time riding in a Vans
>
> I wound up with 9.2 hours of x-country time and got that long
> x-country requirement out of the way, and even got somewhere around
> 1.5 hours of actual on the flight(s).
>
> The 182 was giving us about 140kts true and climb rates in the
> neighborhood of 7 800 fpm (of course we werent really pushing it to
> see what the climb rates were. At 140kts cruise and 6 7000 we were
> seeing fuel flow rates in the neighborhood of 13 or 14 gph.
>
> So jumped into 410RV with Ken as the pilot. We taxied over to the
> fuel island and he filled the tanks (he had flown several flights that
> day and it was getting low ;). In taking the active he turned to
> centerline and gave it full throttle. I think the roll was something
> in the neighborhood of 300 before we were airborne. It may have been
> a little longer, or a little shorter, I was kind of busy with trying
> to peel myself out of the seat at the time. You really feel that
> thrust when you go to full power with that lyco up there. Looking at
> the VSI we were getting almost 1500/min nearly immediately. That
> tells me you can get out of some REALLY short fields ;)
>
> A couple of minutes later we were at 3000 and he put it into (I
> think) about a 55% power cruise and we were doing ~160 MPH with a fuel
> flow of 10 11 gph. We then did a few turns left and right, and he
> turned the controls over to me. One thing I had a lot of trouble with
> in the plane at first is that the visibility is so good over the nose
> that the sight picture makes you immediately put the plane in a climb.
> And boy does it climb. That plane can get away from you fast
>
> Next he did some steep turns and rolled directly from steep turns to
> the left to turns to the right and back. The plane just rolled in and
> out and back and forth with no complaining or weirdness or slop in the
> transitions. It was just amazingly responsive.
>
> The next step was slow flight, and the controls forces are very light
> compared to the 182, even in slow flight. Very good aileron response
> even at very low airspeeds. He then took it to the edge of the stall
> and the buffeting was very pronounced. There were only two of us in
> the airplane and he was able to only get it to barely break into a
> stall with two on board. I think that while its a good thing for a
> four seat x-country plane to be difficult to stall it does kind of
> indicate that there might be a small problem that Ill get to in a second
>
> The last part of the flight was bringing the airplane up to cruise
> from 160MPH. Ken advanced the throttle and, and once again, I had to
> peel myself out of the seat. It took about 60 seconds to accelerate to
> 200MPH and it looked like fuel flow was in the neighborhood of 13GPH.
> This plane just kicked the crap out of the 182 on about every front.
> Ken throttled back and let me fly to the downwind in the pattern
> (although I think he was a little annoyed because I tend to be pretty
> conservative when Im at the controls of a new machine ;) Once again I
> did have some issues with the sight picture as far as maintaining
> straight and level, but I think if I had an hour or two in the plane
> that would not be an issue. It is really due to the fact that the
> visibility out the front is just incredible it is much better than in
> the 182/172s and very comparable to the visibility out the canopy of
> the Katana.
>
> On downwind, Ken once again took over and brought the plane in to
> land. Approach speeds were in the low 60s and the landing was very
> smooth. The problem that I alluded to earlier was that it seems with
> two people that it is difficult to get the nose up to the point where
> the stall happens as a corollary I noticed that ken had both hands on
> the stick and it was pulled fully back in the flare. I dont think
> there was much, if any elevator left. Roll out was pretty standard and
> he didnt use much brake, just kept the elevator back and let the
> speed bleed off.
>
> One thing that I asked about, and liked the answer to, is that he
> needed very little braking for taxi. The prop wash on the rudder is
> adequate to perform most normal steering maneuvers on the ground and
> you only need a touch of brakes for the tight turns. This also
> indicates that there is very good rudder authority at low airspeeds.
> On the flip side, you need very very little rudder during normal flight.
>
> So those of you who were paying attention will notice that I said that
> my instructor was going to ride with us in the -10 and then later
> mentioned that there were only Ken and I in the plane during the demo
> flight My instructor decided that since he was there he was going to
> do a demo in the 9A instead ;) Hes pretty fired up about helping me
> to build and I think we may have another RV builder shortly ;)
>
> Well, once out of the plane I went directly to the car, grabbed the
> order form I had filled out two weeks ago and marched straight up to
> the front desk. After taking the form and running the credit card, she
> came back with a copy of my order form, told me it would be about 10
> 14 days before the emp kit showed up at my door and gave me my builder
> number -- 40400. I was wondering when they were going to hit 400 ;)
>
> As far as the elevator authority problem is concerned I think it is
> pretty easily solved by using ballast if there are only two people in
> the plane. If you dont already have baggage in the baggage
> compartment, just drop a couple of bags of shot in there and it should
> help with the balance. A little bit of a pia, but I think a very small
> price to pay for the performance you get out of the plane. The other
> problem people have noticed with weight and balance is the example in
> the W&B sheets that were posted the other day with the aft cg being a
> bit past the limit with 5 gallons of fuel and four people and 150lbs
> of baggage. While I could see getting to this point, I am not sure
> that it is smart flying in the first place 150 lbs of baggage is
> the supposed structural limit of the floor, so thats about as much as
> you can put back there, and, in my plane at least, the pilot hasnt
> seen 170lbs in quite some time ;), so I do see that it is not totally
> out of the question to get that aft loading. The thing that strikes me
> as not smart is that at a 12 13 gph fuel burn in normal cruise if
> all you have in the tanks is 5 gallons you are really starting to push
> the 30 minutes of fuel requirements, and you are basically busted on
> the IFR requirements. Personally, Im getting pretty nervous if I am
> down to an hours worth of fuel, but that is just me. As such, it is
> just a question of being aware of what the limits are and adhering to
> them. As a comparison point for certified, if you put four people into
> a 172SP and fill the tanks you are most likely over gross and
> definitely at a CG that is way aft of the limit in the 182, you are
> within 2 of the aft cg with 4 standard people and full fuel and 150
> lbs of baggage. I am guessing that with the -10 that the fuel is
> pretty much ahead of the cg and in the 182 its right on the cg. So
> maybe that is one point in favor of the 182, but I dont think it
> makes up for the performance characteristics of the 10. John Cox had a
> good suggestion to fix it use a depleted U-238 disk for a prop
> spinner ;) Seriously, if it does turn out to be a problem once a few
> of these are flying I will probably figure out some sort of ballast to
> compensate if possible. If not, then its just a question of knowing
> the limits and adhering to them.
>
> I have to say that the visit to Vans and the demo flight was maybe
> 25% of what I got out of my trip up there. I have to say that it was
> awesome to have John drive us around and introduce us to a large
> number of builders on the airport, including several who were in
> various stages of projects other than Vans. Especially thanks to Randy
> for letting us poke and prod at his -10 and between my instructor and
> I, I believe we probably logged at least .5 hours of hangar flying ;)
> It was a big help to see the various stages people were in too.
> Another builder on the airport is building a 9 and spent a couple of
> hours just chatting with us and showing us what he was doing (he was
> working on the control linkages for the fuse) and letting us ask lots
> of questions and be generally nosy. I was really attracted to building
> a vans just by the community I saw on the mailing list, and now that I
> have met a number of you, I have to say that the list doesnt even
> begin to describe how great the community is. So again, thanks to
> everybody for everything you did for us while we were up there!!!
>
> James Ochs, #40400
>
> (im)patiently waiting on the emp kit
>
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Are you saying your actual floor panel ABOVE the floor ribs is in place
where the pilots and copilots feet are? My floor is not in place
at all, and that front weldment isn't riveted into anything yet, but
appears to possibly be match drilled into the z rib below.
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
DO NOT ARCHIVE
David McNeill wrote:
> Anyone try to remove the front floors that are temp riveted in place? My
> kit arrived with the gear weldments in place but the forward support was
> not match drilled to the floor and Z channel beneath it nor were
> nutplates installed. As a result to follow the plans one would have to
> remove the gear weldment (which will be a daunting task) to remove the
> floor.
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: | Electronic Ignition, etc. |
Does anybody know what the claims are for percentage saving on fuel burn
with LASAR, Lightspeed and E-MAG? Does Van's use one? It looks like they
claim that they burn about 10.56gph at 55% and 14.32gph at 75% power, both
at gross weight at takeoff. I understand that Jon Johanson said he got a
total of about 15% fuel burn savings when he had the Lightspeed in. Would
this hold for the 540? If so, then it would be burning about 9gph at 55%
which would give it a range of just under 1,000sm with an hour of reserve
and 12.2gph at 75% which would give it a range of 771sm with an hour of
reserve.
All of this is to help decide whether we are going to go with extended range
tanks or not. Our goal is to be able to get the claimed 1,000 mile range
but have an hour of reserve. One group is making tip tanks for the -10 that
hold a total of 15 gallons for $2300 + crating and shipping. It sure would
be nice to have a range of 1,000 miles instead of 800, but I would rather do
it by burning less fuel than by adding more fuel capacity, cheaper all the
way around.
Again, on the same note, any insight on GAMIjectors? I hear they give more
of a benefit on Cont engines than on Lyc's, although they do claim added
fuel economy, power and smoothness on the Lyc's as well.
Thanks as always!
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 Wayne Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
I'm not sure how close you are to completing your project but you might want
to take a look at the following web site for E Mag Electronic Ignition.
http://www.emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
They currently aren't able to supply these for the 540 but I talked to them
and they say it's one of their high priorities to get it ready for the 540.
It appears to be a very straight forward system and solves a lot of
problems.
I'm not the greatest mechanic, so I've been asking people who are a lot
better than me about elec ignition. I was told that the Light Speed is
complicated to install. The LASAR was easier to install with more advantages
but as you noted much more expensive.
I talked to Bart at AeroSport engines about elec ignition and he
recommended, for what my needs are for my 10, that the Light Speed Plasma
II Plus would be what I should use if I chose Light Speed. They say you
will have better performance, because of hotter spark, better fuel
efficiency and starting and your spark plugs will supposedly last longer.
Again my disclaimer on all of this is I'm currently in the research and
learning mode so read my thoughts with that in mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
We are trying to decide whether we get our MAG's rebuilt or to replace one
with a Lightspeed. The LASAR electronic ignition is a little on the
expensive and complicated side, so we would rather stay away from that.
What are the benefits of the Lightspeed? Which model would you recommend?
What kind of added performance can we expect on the IO-540? How complicated
is the installation?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
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: | Re: Electronic Ignition, etc. |
I had GAMI injectors on my Baron, Cont IO550, and they work very well. However
having said that you had to be very careful and understand what you were doing
because what is done is that you lean to the lean side of peak and when you do
that it's a very tight window to play with. If I leaned to the normal 50 to
75deg rich of peak I would burn about 32 to 33 GPH. When I leaned to the lean
side I would burn about 26GPH, but I would also lose some speed because of leaning
so far, less gas loss of power. As I'm sure you know when they install the
GAMI's they give you, at least on the Cont, larger injectors for the rear cylinders
because they are not getting as much air flow and burn hotter so they
need more fuel to cool them down, while the front cylinders would have smaller
injectors.
It took a lot of reading and soul searching, because of all my original training
on gas is cheaper than engines mantra, to lean the engines to the lean side
of peak. But it does work but like I've said you have to understand what it is
you are doing or you could end up with some burnt values.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 6:32 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition, etc.
Does anybody know what the claims are for percentage saving on fuel burn with
LASAR, Lightspeed and E-MAG? Does Van's use one? It looks like they claim that
they burn about 10.56gph at 55% and 14.32gph at 75% power, both at gross weight
at takeoff. I understand that Jon Johanson said he got a total of about
15% fuel burn savings when he had the Lightspeed in. Would this hold for the
540? If so, then it would be burning about 9gph at 55% which would give it a
range of just under 1,000sm with an hour of reserve and 12.2gph at 75% which
would give it a range of 771sm with an hour of reserve.
All of this is to help decide whether we are going to go with extended range
tanks or not. Our goal is to be able to get the claimed 1,000 mile range but
have an hour of reserve. One group is making tip tanks for the -10 that hold
a total of 15 gallons for $2300 + crating and shipping. It sure would be nice
to have a range of 1,000 miles instead of 800, but I would rather do it by burning
less fuel than by adding more fuel capacity, cheaper all the way around.
Again, on the same note, any insight on GAMIjectors? I hear they give more of
a benefit on Cont engines than on Lyc's, although they do claim added fuel economy,
power and smoothness on the Lyc's as well.
Thanks as always!
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 Wayne Edgerton
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 8:13 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
I'm not sure how close you are to completing your project but you might want
to take a look at the following web site for E Mag Electronic Ignition.
http://www.emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
They currently aren't able to supply these for the 540 but I talked to them and
they say it's one of their high priorities to get it ready for the 540. It
appears to be a very straight forward system and solves a lot of problems.
I'm not the greatest mechanic, so I've been asking people who are a lot better
than me about elec ignition. I was told that the Light Speed is complicated
to install. The LASAR was easier to install with more advantages but as you noted
much more expensive.
I talked to Bart at AeroSport engines about elec ignition and he recommended,
for what my needs are for my 10, that the Light Speed Plasma II Plus would
be what I should use if I chose Light Speed. They say you will have better performance,
because of hotter spark, better fuel efficiency and starting and your
spark plugs will supposedly last longer.
Again my disclaimer on all of this is I'm currently in the research and learning
mode so read my thoughts with that in mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 4:52 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
We are trying to decide whether we get our MAG's rebuilt or to replace one
with a Lightspeed. The LASAR electronic ignition is a little on the expensive
and complicated side, so we would rather stay away from that.
What are the benefits of the Lightspeed? Which model would you recommend?
What kind of added performance can we expect on the IO-540? How complicated
is the installation?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
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 |
|
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition, etc. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
I've done some work with Beech and Lancair powerplants running GAMI on a Continental
IO-520/IO-550 and TSIO-550. The Lancair group has covered it in their archive
files - in depth. The concept is balanced injectors (balanced to the exact
volumetric capacity of each cylinder) then custom matched flow to provide
identical Fuel Air Ratio. It is critical in my opinion that you have an engine
analyzer capable of monitoring both CHT and EGT. Some will tell you contrary
FWIW. The key is to do their GAMI lean test which is too much data at this
point. The art comes with flying the engine beyond 100 degrees Lean of Peak.
This black magic does not apply to high pressure levels such as takeoff power
or climb when the additional Rich of Peak is needed to extract excessive cylinder
heat. The objective is fuel savings, lower operating temperatures and better
performance from the engine.
The physics is based on the impending failure of aluminum when subjected to sustained
temperatures in excess of 420 degrees for extended periods. In an air-cooled
engine, baffling becomes critical, control of the high pressure plenum
airflow is more important and an eagle's eye monitoring of the CHT temperatures.
I can provide horror stories of TSIO-550 which go less than 500 hours before
overhaul because temperatures become too great for the oil film around the
exhaust valve stem and then aluminum looses its properties. With engines running
$70K+ and a top end running $16K+ you can appreciate the Lycoming sodium filled
valve stem real quick. Some guys just pour the avgas on the problem to
lower the temperatures and avoid the precision engine monitoring technique.
In concept, a properly balanced Fuel Air Ratio to each cylinder with correct head
temperatures are good for both Lycoming and Continental. Don't lose sight
of the fact that on climb out you can be burning in excess of 20 gph till trimming
back the throttle and setting 100 LOP to get that 55% cruise.
George Braley at GAMI has two valuable seminars that shoots holes in the Ole Wives Tales. These are "Running LOP" and the second seminar is "The proper technique of baffle design and placement". GAMI is in Ada, OK. http://www.gami.com/frames.htm
John Cox - KUAO
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition, etc.
Does anybody know what the claims are for percentage saving on fuel burn with LASAR,
Lightspeed and E-MAG? Does Van's use one? It looks like they claim that
they burn about 10.56gph at 55% and 14.32gph at 75% power, both at gross weight
at takeoff. I understand that Jon Johanson said he got a total of about 15%
fuel burn savings when he had the Lightspeed in. Would this hold for the 540?
If so, then it would be burning about 9gph at 55% which would give it a range
of just under 1,000sm with an hour of reserve and 12.2gph at 75% which would give
it a range of 771sm with an hour of reserve.
All of this is to help decide whether we are going to go with extended range tanks
or not. Our goal is to be able to get the claimed 1,000 mile range but have
an hour of reserve. One group is making tip tanks for the -10 that hold a total
of 15 gallons for $2300 + crating and shipping. It sure would be nice to have
a range of 1,000 miles instead of 800, but I would rather do it by burning
less fuel than by adding more fuel capacity, cheaper all the way around.
Again, on the same note, any insight on GAMIjectors? I hear they give more of a
benefit on Cont engines than on Lyc's, although they do claim added fuel economy,
power and smoothness on the Lyc's as well.
Thanks as always!
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 Wayne Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
I'm not sure how close you are to completing your project but you might want to
take a look at the following web site for E Mag Electronic Ignition.
http://www.emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
They currently aren't able to supply these for the 540 but I talked to them and
they say it's one of their high priorities to get it ready for the 540. It appears
to be a very straight forward system and solves a lot of problems.
I'm not the greatest mechanic, so I've been asking people who are a lot better
than me about elec ignition. I was told that the Light Speed is complicated to
install. The LASAR was easier to install with more advantages but as you noted
much more expensive.
I talked to Bart at AeroSport engines about elec ignition and he recommended, forwhat
my needs are for my10, that theLight Speed Plasma II Plus would be what
I should use if I chose Light Speed. They say you will have better performance,
because of hotterspark, better fuel efficiency and starting and your spark
plugs will supposedly last longer.
Again my disclaimer on all of this is I'm currently in the research and learning
mode so read my thoughts with that in mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
We are trying to decide whether we get our MAG's rebuilt or to replace one with
a Lightspeed. The LASAR electronic ignition is a little on the expensive and
complicated side, so we would rather stay away from that.
What are the benefits of the Lightspeed? Which model would you recommend? What
kind of added performance can we expect on the IO-540? How complicated is the
installation?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F:815-377-3694
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: | Electronic Ignition, etc. |
How did this fuel burn compare to normal injectors? Is the main thing about
GAMI's that it allows you to lean more without damaging the cylinders?
Thanks.
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 Wayne Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition, etc.
I had GAMI injectors on my Baron, Cont IO550, and they work very well.
However having said that you had to be very careful and understand what you
were doing because what is done is that you lean to the lean side of peak
and when you do that it's a very tight window to play with. If I leaned to
the normal 50 to 75deg rich of peak I would burn about 32 to 33 GPH. When I
leaned to the lean side I would burn about 26GPH, but I would also lose some
speed because of leaning so far, less gas = loss of power. As I'm sure you
know when they install the GAMI's they give you, at least on the Cont,
larger injectors for the rear cylinders because they are not getting as much
air flow and burn hotter so they need more fuel to cool them down, while the
front cylinders would have smaller injectors.
It took a lot of reading and soul searching, because of all my original
training on gas is cheaper than engines mantra, to lean the engines to the
lean side of peak. But it does work but like I've said you have to
understand what it is you are doing or you could end up with some burnt
values.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition, etc.
Does anybody know what the claims are for percentage saving on fuel burn
with LASAR, Lightspeed and E-MAG? Does Van's use one? It looks like they
claim that they burn about 10.56gph at 55% and 14.32gph at 75% power, both
at gross weight at takeoff. I understand that Jon Johanson said he got a
total of about 15% fuel burn savings when he had the Lightspeed in. Would
this hold for the 540? If so, then it would be burning about 9gph at 55%
which would give it a range of just under 1,000sm with an hour of reserve
and 12.2gph at 75% which would give it a range of 771sm with an hour of
reserve.
All of this is to help decide whether we are going to go with extended range
tanks or not. Our goal is to be able to get the claimed 1,000 mile range
but have an hour of reserve. One group is making tip tanks for the -10 that
hold a total of 15 gallons for $2300 + crating and shipping. It sure would
be nice to have a range of 1,000 miles instead of 800, but I would rather do
it by burning less fuel than by adding more fuel capacity, cheaper all the
way around.
Again, on the same note, any insight on GAMIjectors? I hear they give more
of a benefit on Cont engines than on Lyc's, although they do claim added
fuel economy, power and smoothness on the Lyc's as well.
Thanks as always!
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 Wayne Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
I'm not sure how close you are to completing your project but you might want
to take a look at the following web site for E Mag Electronic Ignition.
http://www.emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
They currently aren't able to supply these for the 540 but I talked to them
and they say it's one of their high priorities to get it ready for the 540.
It appears to be a very straight forward system and solves a lot of
problems.
I'm not the greatest mechanic, so I've been asking people who are a lot
better than me about elec ignition. I was told that the Light Speed is
complicated to install. The LASAR was easier to install with more advantages
but as you noted much more expensive.
I talked to Bart at AeroSport engines about elec ignition and he
recommended, for what my needs are for my 10, that the Light Speed Plasma
II Plus would be what I should use if I chose Light Speed. They say you
will have better performance, because of hotter spark, better fuel
efficiency and starting and your spark plugs will supposedly last longer.
Again my disclaimer on all of this is I'm currently in the research and
learning mode so read my thoughts with that in mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
We are trying to decide whether we get our MAG's rebuilt or to replace one
with a Lightspeed. The LASAR electronic ignition is a little on the
expensive and complicated side, so we would rather stay away from that.
What are the benefits of the Lightspeed? Which model would you recommend?
What kind of added performance can we expect on the IO-540? How complicated
is the installation?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition, etc. |
With normal injectors I would burn the 32 to 33 gph. Unless you did the lean of
peak drill I didn't notice much if any saving. And as John Cox pointed out much
better than me, you need a good engine monitoring system to make sure everything
stays in check and you can see each cylinders temperature.
The main thing with GAMI's is to balance the flow to the cylinders, as John pointed
out, and because you have the fuel flow balance to each cylinder you can
lean it beyond peak, because they should all lean evenly. If you would do this
with normal injectors when you leaned the rear cylinders to the correct temperature
the front cylinders would still be burning more fuel than needed because
you leaned to the hottest cylinder, which would in most cases be the rear ones.
And if you tried to lean the front cylinders to the ideal temperature the
rear cylinders would be way to hot because all the injectors would be the same
size and you normally wouldn't have as much air flow to the rear cylinders, as
compared to GAMI's which would normally have larger injectors in the rear and
smaller in the front.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 8:55 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition, etc.
How did this fuel burn compare to normal injectors? Is the main thing about
GAMI's that it allows you to lean more without damaging the cylinders?
Thanks.
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 Wayne Edgerton
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 9:32 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition, etc.
I had GAMI injectors on my Baron, Cont IO550, and they work very well. However
having said that you had to be very careful and understand what you were doing
because what is done is that you lean to the lean side of peak and when you
do that it's a very tight window to play with. If I leaned to the normal 50 to
75deg rich of peak I would burn about 32 to 33 GPH. When I leaned to the lean
side I would burn about 26GPH, but I would also lose some speed because of leaning
so far, less gas loss of power. As I'm sure you know when they install
the GAMI's they give you, at least on the Cont, larger injectors for the rear
cylinders because they are not getting as much air flow and burn hotter so they
need more fuel to cool them down, while the front cylinders would have smaller
injectors.
It took a lot of reading and soul searching, because of all my original training
on gas is cheaper than engines mantra, to lean the engines to the lean side
of peak. But it does work but like I've said you have to understand what it
is you are doing or you could end up with some burnt values.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 6:32 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition, etc.
Does anybody know what the claims are for percentage saving on fuel burn with
LASAR, Lightspeed and E-MAG? Does Van's use one? It looks like they claim
that they burn about 10.56gph at 55% and 14.32gph at 75% power, both at gross
weight at takeoff. I understand that Jon Johanson said he got a total of about
15% fuel burn savings when he had the Lightspeed in. Would this hold for the
540? If so, then it would be burning about 9gph at 55% which would give it
a range of just under 1,000sm with an hour of reserve and 12.2gph at 75% which
would give it a range of 771sm with an hour of reserve.
All of this is to help decide whether we are going to go with extended range
tanks or not. Our goal is to be able to get the claimed 1,000 mile range but
have an hour of reserve. One group is making tip tanks for the -10 that hold
a total of 15 gallons for $2300 + crating and shipping. It sure would be nice
to have a range of 1,000 miles instead of 800, but I would rather do it by
burning less fuel than by adding more fuel capacity, cheaper all the way around.
Again, on the same note, any insight on GAMIjectors? I hear they give more
of a benefit on Cont engines than on Lyc's, although they do claim added fuel
economy, power and smoothness on the Lyc's as well.
Thanks as always!
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 Wayne Edgerton
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 8:13 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
I'm not sure how close you are to completing your project but you might want
to take a look at the following web site for E Mag Electronic Ignition.
http://www.emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm
They currently aren't able to supply these for the 540 but I talked to them
and they say it's one of their high priorities to get it ready for the 540. It
appears to be a very straight forward system and solves a lot of problems.
I'm not the greatest mechanic, so I've been asking people who are a lot better
than me about elec ignition. I was told that the Light Speed is complicated
to install. The LASAR was easier to install with more advantages but as you
noted much more expensive.
I talked to Bart at AeroSport engines about elec ignition and he recommended,
for what my needs are for my 10, that the Light Speed Plasma II Plus would
be what I should use if I chose Light Speed. They say you will have better performance,
because of hotter spark, better fuel efficiency and starting and your
spark plugs will supposedly last longer.
Again my disclaimer on all of this is I'm currently in the research and learning
mode so read my thoughts with that in mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 4:52 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Electronic Ignition
We are trying to decide whether we get our MAG's rebuilt or to replace one
with a Lightspeed. The LASAR electronic ignition is a little on the expensive
and complicated side, so we would rather stay away from that.
What are the benefits of the Lightspeed? Which model would you recommend?
What kind of added performance can we expect on the IO-540? How complicated
is the installation?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
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! --
|