Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:08 AM - Re: Strobe wiring (and a tip) (Mani Ravee)
2. 06:16 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Perry Casson)
3. 07:04 AM - Re: Randy's Engine (Rick)
4. 07:17 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
5. 07:28 AM - Re: Strobe wiring (and a tip) (owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto)
6. 08:27 AM - Re: Randy's Engine (Tim Olson)
7. 08:44 AM - Re: Re: Switching to a 7A (John Jessen)
8. 08:58 AM - Re: Randy's Engine (Randy DeBauw)
9. 09:03 AM - Re: Randy's Engine (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
10. 09:19 AM - Re: Randy's Engine (Rick)
11. 09:19 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Jim Combs)
12. 09:33 AM - Re: Randy's Engine (Randy DeBauw)
13. 09:34 AM - Re: Randy's Engine (Jim Combs)
14. 10:11 AM - Re: Randy's Engine (Rick)
15. 10:12 AM - Re: Randy's Engine (John W. Cox)
16. 10:19 AM - Re: Randy's Engine (Stein Bruch)
17. 11:23 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Stein Bruch)
18. 11:38 AM - Re: Randy's Engine (Rick)
19. 12:38 PM - Strobe cable (John Hasbrouck)
20. 12:57 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com)
21. 02:12 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Jim Combs)
22. 02:55 PM - New Engine Technology - Dave Hertner's Reply (Dave Hertner)
23. 04:05 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Wayne Edgerton)
24. 05:46 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (linn walters)
25. 07:15 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Wayne Edgerton)
26. 07:44 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (James Ochs)
27. 08:50 PM - Re: Strobe wiring (and a tip) (DejaVu)
28. 08:56 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Rick)
29. 08:59 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Rick)
30. 09:03 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (DejaVu)
31. 09:10 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Rick)
32. 11:03 PM - Self Contained Strobes (Sean Stephens)
33. 11:04 PM - inventory (Robert G. Wright)
34. 11:53 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - Dave Hertner's Reply (Bill McCoy)
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: | Strobe wiring (and a tip) |
Just a thought. What about those Whelan strobes with individual power
supplies that can be mounted in the wing tips. They have more power like
higher joules. They only require a 18g wire to supply power to them. Anyone
plan on using them?
Mani
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
It took all 15' to get from the wing tip to root. I have not ran the rest
but I'm sure another 10' for a total of 25' will get you there with some to
spare.
Anh
Maryland
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris <mailto:toaster73@earthlink.net>
Subject: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
Hello
Does anyone have some good numbers for the length of strobe wire required if
my strobe power supply is mounted on the floor behind the aft baggage
bulkhead next to the AP pitch servo. I don't plan on making a connection at
the wing root, but I need to allow for some extra wire in that area and on
the ends.
thanks
Chris Lucas
#40072
Tip,
I was having issues with J-channel rubbing against the wing ribs so I
increased the hole center line dimension down the j-channel just a hair
(1/32 inch) to move the J-end of the channel away from the rib a bit instead
of filing more out of each rib. I also took a little material of the j-end
of the channel with a belt sander.
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: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Perry Casson <pcasson@sasktel.net>
If someone actually got the BSFC down to the .15 to .20 range this would
be of such huge significance to the much larger industries such as
automotive (and economies of nations) there is no way any real company
would be wasting their time with an aircraft installation.
..just my opinion
Perry Casson
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 |
|
DNA: do not archive
Its-Bogus: do not forward to list
--- MIME Errors ---
A message with no text/plain section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using plaintext formatting.
NOTE! This error can also occur when the poster of the
message has a specific type of computer virus. This virus
WAS NOT forwarded on to the List. The poster should be
informed of the potential problem with their system as soon
as possible.
--- MIME Errors ---
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: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Dave
I also agree with what is here. I am looking at an alternative engine,
and am very interested in exploring this avenue. Things that would
motivate me are test cell running to prove TBO, and number of Aircraft
installed on, I realize to break into the market place you would need
Beta testers, I am willing to do that beta testing, but would be have to
be at manufactures expense. If I am willing to use my airframe, the
least they could do is provide the engine for testing/ proof of concept.
Dan
40269
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn walters
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Dave Hertner wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that
was developed by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his
name. Let's also say that the demonstrated efficiency of this combustion
chamber technology is double what is currently available. This is to say
that an engine that used this combustion chamber technology would
operate with a BSFC in the order of .15 to .20 lb/hp/hr. on multiple
different fuels.
That sounds good. I'm interested
This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and
the torque curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would
not need a constant speed propeller.
Big bonus. I'm more interested.
This engine would operate in an RPM range from ~300 to 3000rpm.
That's about as perfect a range as you can get.
It wouldn't need an ignition system
Now I'm a little sceptical. Hydraulic ignition (like a diesel) is
harder to start without some other ignition to get it started.
and it doesn't retain much heat so a small liquid cooling system
would allow you to have heat in the cabin.
That would certainly make cooling a non-issue and remove cooling drag.
That's a big bonus.
It is NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine
nor is it a axial turbine. The engine would be compact and be available
in the exact horsepower you require for your airframe. The engine would
only be available as a part of a complete firewall forward package.
But maybe you'll let us know what kind of engine it is??? Is it
produceable in a similar price range as present engine technology?
Cheaper would be even better.
So here is the question.
In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to
demonstrate to you with regard to an aircraft engine based on the above
information.
I'd have to see the dyno data and thermo data. A proof of concept
engine flying in an airplane would go far in removing y scepticism.
What would you have to see in place.
That airplane flying.
What would you have to see demonstrated.
That airplane flying. To TBO would be good. I understand that that
would take some time, but running in a test cell could be a great
indicator.
What level of comfort would you have to have with the company
before you would place your order?
Jim Bede taught me never to buy the 'best thing since sliced bread'
until there was significant (let's say 100) examples completed. Of
course, given a significant price break to beta test an engine would go
far in reaching that 100 piece goal.
Hypothetically!
Well, I'd love to see it. I have no hangups with alternative engines.
I'd hypothetically consider one for my -10. Lemme know when the
hypothetical becomes a reality ..... or do you plan to keep this one all
to yourself???
Linn
do not archive
Dave Hertner
=09
_____
5/2/05
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: | Strobe wiring (and a tip) |
Several people I know do just that. Mainly it is to keep the high voltage away
from any fuel. Randy
-----Original Message-----
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
Just a thought. What about those Whelan strobes with individual power supplies
that can be mounted in the wing tips. They have more power like higher joules.
They only require a 18g wire to supply power to them. Anyone plan on using them?
Mani
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
It took all 15' to get from the wing tip to root. I have not ran the rest but
I'm sure another 10' for a total of 25' will get you there with some to spare.
Anh
Maryland
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris <mailto:toaster73@earthlink.net>
Subject: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
Hello
Does anyone have some good numbers for the length of strobe wire required if my
strobe power supply is mounted on the floor behind the aft baggage bulkhead next
to the AP pitch servo. I don't plan on making a connection at the wing root,
but I need to allow for some extra wire in that area and on the ends.
thanks
Chris Lucas
#40072
Tip,
I was having issues with J-channel rubbing against the wing ribs so I increased
the hole center line dimension down the j-channel just a hair (1/32 inch) to
move the J-end of the channel away from the rib a bit instead of filing more out
of each rib. I also took a little material of the j-end of the channel with
a belt sander.
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: | Re: Randy's Engine |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I thought it was to stiffen the tube a bit so it doesn't sag as much...
Tim
Rick wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
> It's meant to hold the scat tube together in the event it fails so it
> won't unravel.
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
> Wings
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Switching to a 7A |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
This came from a builder/owner of an RV-8, who also is a CFI. He felt that
the plane was so quick in both roll and pitch that flying it hard IFR, in a
busy scenario, could very well overwhelm even the best, leading to over
corrections, etc, etc. In short, he felt that if you were planning on many
IFR trips, then an RV-7 or RV-8 was the wrong plane for the mission. Best
to get an RV-9.
I also heard this from many others, and probably have their correspondences
still, if you're interested. Of course, heard it from Van's. However, I do
know of folks flying RV-6's IFR, and recommend it. I even know of one
person who got his IFR ticket in an RV-6. I think it's all in planning for
the extremes. Best to have a mechanical helper if you're doing single pilot
IFR in the soup at night with minimums a possibility. Given that and LOTS
of practice, I'm certain that an RV-7A would be doable. It's all a risk at
some point, and for the RV-8 owner it was so much of a risk that he almost
shouted out me his warning. In fact I think he did shout it.
John Jessen
- RV-10 Empcone
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Folbrecht
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 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: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy@abros.com>
Well that may be it as well. I haven't asked the boys at Van's yet. I have been
spending a lot of time at the beach (Sands somore).
-----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: Randy's Engine
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I thought it was to stiffen the tube a bit so it doesn't sag as much...
Tim
Rick wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
> It's meant to hold the scat tube together in the event it fails so it
> won't unravel.
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
> Wings
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
The doctor said that was my problem . . . : )
TDT
-----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: Randy's Engine
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I thought it was to stiffen the tube a bit so it doesn't sag as much...
Tim
Rick wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
> It's meant to hold the scat tube together in the event it fails so it
> won't unravel.
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
> Wings
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Randy & Tim,
I read about doing this in the 21 years of RV-ator, page 173 by Ken, "If the cord
on the outside breaks it can only unravel a half turn instead of all the way
down the hose"
Rick S.
40185
Wings
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: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jim Combs" <jimc@mail.infra-read.com>
Yep, sounds like one or more laws of physics is being broken!
Not going to happen.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Perry Casson <pcasson@sasktel.net>
--> RV10-List message posted by: Perry Casson <pcasson@sasktel.net>
If someone actually got the BSFC down to the .15 to .20 range this would
be of such huge significance to the much larger industries such as
automotive (and economies of nations) there is no way any real company
would be wasting their time with an aircraft installation.
..just my opinion
Perry Casson
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy@abros.com>
Great answer. Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Randy's Engine
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Randy & Tim,
I read about doing this in the 21 years of RV-ator, page 173 by Ken, "If the cord
on the outside breaks it can only unravel a half turn instead of all the way
down the hose"
Rick S.
40185
Wings
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jim Combs" <jimc@mail.infra-read.com>
Rick,
Any wire in it or just a bead of silicone?
Jim Combs
#40192
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=GENERATOR>
It's meant to hold the scat tube together in the event it failssoit won't unravel.
Rick S.
40185
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Jim,
It only say a bead of silicone, no reason you couldn't place a .020 run of safety
wire for some more strength but it's not mentioned in the tip from Ken, he
credits Scott for the info so I assume it's on all the Van's demonstrators and
their personal aircraft as well. I think I read a bit about this on Dan Checkoways
too. It doesn't make a lot of sense reading about it but when you see the
tube with the silicone on it you can see how practical and simple the solution
is. Considering the consequences if it became unraveled it looks like cheap
insurance.
Rick
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Haven't read the directive from Van's but the application does both...
enhance retaining the cloth string wrapped around the scat tube which
likes to separate by unraveling and it did a remarkable job of
stiffening the tube while following a three dimensional routing path.
Not too Soft, Not too Hard, Just Right. The creator should be credited
appropriately cause its another clear stroke of genius. Around the
exhaust stacks, it will prove invaluable.
John
-----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: Randy's Engine
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I thought it was to stiffen the tube a bit so it doesn't sag as much...
Tim
Rick wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
> It's meant to hold the scat tube together in the event it fails so it
> won't unravel.
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
> 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 |
|
d="scan'208"; a="1033593659:sNHT20240466"
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
This old trick of putting a bead of RTV down the tubing is as previously
mentioned, to keep if from unraveling. Commonly, when a Scat tube is cut,
the little cloth re-enforcing string will start to un-wind. Add vibration,
heat and movement, and it will go on it's own. Many years ago, some bright
mechanic realized that a bead of RTV keeps this little string from
unraveling and ruining the tubing. That being said, typically we don't run
it the entire length of the tubing anymore, but a couple inches on each end
will suffice, but many people still choose to do the whole thing.
Cheers,
Stein.
-----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: Randy's Engine
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I thought it was to stiffen the tube a bit so it doesn't sag as much...
Tim
Rick wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
> It's meant to hold the scat tube together in the event it fails so it
> won't unravel.
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
> 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 |
|
d="scan'208"; a="1079053815:sNHT28656004"
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
That number isn't too far off....the HUGE (and I mean HUGE) marine diesels
are operating at a bsfc of around .26-.27, which isn't too shabby. Never
mind that the max RPM on an engine like that is around 100, and it burns
1600+ gph.
Anyway, there's some neat info on the net about these engines. Search for
the "Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C" engine. Their website has all the info on it,
or you can see pics at websites such as:
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/
Also, Jim Ayers mentioned the stirling...there are a lot of engine
configurations out there that aren't well known publically that have better
bsfc than our lycosaurs or autos do.
Cheers,
Stein
do not archive (should be more of the DNA's on these types of
discussions......)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Combs
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jim Combs" <jimc@mail.infra-read.com>
Yep, sounds like one or more laws of physics is being broken!
Not going to happen.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Perry Casson <pcasson@sasktel.net>
--> RV10-List message posted by: Perry Casson <pcasson@sasktel.net>
If someone actually got the BSFC down to the .15 to .20 range this would
be of such huge significance to the much larger industries such as
automotive (and economies of nations) there is no way any real company
would be wasting their time with an aircraft installation.
..just my opinion
Perry Casson
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
He Hee...
"Not too Soft, Not too Hard, Just Right."
Kinda like the Goldilocks of airplanes tips or....um..never mind.
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
All,
Does anyone know if there is a difference in the three conductor
Whelen cable Vans sells for hookup of strobes and the three conductor Whelen
cable available from auto electric suppliers and e-bay? From what I can see
the only difference is price with the auto supply being about half the cost.
Both are from Whelen and I think both are 18AWG and shielded....john
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: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
If you use an alternative engine be sure you check with your insurance
company. They are becoming very very picky concerning the engine you
use. Turbines are absolutely the worse to insure. This, combined with
fuel burn, are the main reasons you don't see more turbine Lancairs.
Falcon has a list of approved engines they will give you. But there
basic rule is if you deviate from what the manufacturer recommends, they
probably won't even touch it.
When I first started building I was the same way. I wanted to use some
kind of diesel engine. But the fact is, no one has made any real
progress to put diesels in planes for the masses, except for maybe
Diamond Aircraft. No one out there is funded well enough to give me any
confidence that they will be around in the coming years. I was excited
in 1998 or maybe it was 1999 when NASA and Continental were teaming up
to develop a liquid cooled diesel engine. But that project went no
where. I think there is a critical mass of people forming right now
that will cause diesel engines to take off and I feel Diamond Aircraft
will lead the way. They now have the diesel engines in their new twin
and once insurance companies and consumers build some confidence,
investors will then be willing to invest the proper capital to develop a
strong program.
The one thing I do know is that Van's will not support any engine in the
next 5 - 10 years except for Lycoming. And it sure is nice to open that
firewall forward kit and have all the hoses, baffles, air cleaner
assembly, and exhaust complete.
The other thing to consider is resale. Until the diesel engines are
used much more extensively, buyers of experimental aircraft will shy
away from anything that cannot be supported at most airports. This is
one reason I went with the Bendix injector instead of the Airflow
Performance.
I also just wanted to mention that there have been many advancements in
the old 540. The metallurgy of the pistons and cylinders has improved
dramatically. The Lightspeed ignition is a big improvement, the
injectors are more balanced for a better balance of temperatures, the
castings are much smoother, engines are balanced significantly better,
and many more improvements. Today's IO-540 is a much better engine than
even 5 years ago. I know I am talking like someone who has recently
invested in an IO-540 and I am trying to justify it (which I have, and
it will be delivered tomorrow). But I have also thought of every
scenario and engine combination but nothing looks as good as an IO-540
right now. I don't see AVGAS going away in the next 10 years and you
can still buy it in bulk for $2.40 a gallon, today!
I sure would like to see some engine companies make some great
breakthroughs though. Turbo diesels will be the future but they are
still 10 years away in my opinion and I want to be flying this year.
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Dave
I also agree with what is here. I am looking at an alternative engine,
and am very interested in exploring this avenue. Things that would
motivate me are test cell running to prove TBO, and number of Aircraft
installed on, I realize to break into the market place you would need
Beta testers, I am willing to do that beta testing, but would be have to
be at manufactures expense. If I am willing to use my airframe, the
least they could do is provide the engine for testing/ proof of concept.
Dan
40269
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn walters
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Dave Hertner wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was
developed by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his
name. Let's also say that the demonstrated efficiency of this combustion
chamber technology is double what is currently available. This is to say
that an engine that used this combustion chamber technology would
operate with a BSFC in the order of .15 to .20 lb/hp/hr. on multiple
different fuels.
That sounds good. I'm interested
This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and the
torque curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would not
need a constant speed propeller.
Big bonus. I'm more interested.
This engine would operate in an RPM range from ~300 to 3000rpm.
That's about as perfect a range as you can get.
It wouldn't need an ignition system
Now I'm a little sceptical. Hydraulic ignition (like a diesel) is
harder to start without some other ignition to get it started.
and it doesn't retain much heat so a small liquid cooling system would
allow you to have heat in the cabin.
That would certainly make cooling a non-issue and remove cooling drag.
That's a big bonus.
It is NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine nor is it
a axial turbine. The engine would be compact and be available in the
exact horsepower you require for your airframe. The engine would only be
available as a part of a complete firewall forward package.
But maybe you'll let us know what kind of engine it is??? Is it
produceable in a similar price range as present engine technology?
Cheaper would be even better.
So here is the question.
In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to
you with regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information.
I'd have to see the dyno data and thermo data. A proof of concept
engine flying in an airplane would go far in removing y scepticism.
What would you have to see in place.
That airplane flying.
What would you have to see demonstrated.
That airplane flying. To TBO would be good. I understand that that
would take some time, but running in a test cell could be a great
indicator.
What level of comfort would you have to have with the company before you
would place your order?
Jim Bede taught me never to buy the 'best thing since sliced bread'
until there was significant (let's say 100) examples completed. Of
course, given a significant price break to beta test an engine would go
far in reaching that 100 piece goal.
Hypothetically!
Well, I'd love to see it. I have no hangups with alternative engines.
I'd hypothetically consider one for my -10. Lemme know when the
hypothetical becomes a reality ..... or do you plan to keep this one all
to yourself???
Linn
do not archive
Dave Hertner
________________________________
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: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jim Combs" <jimc@mail.infra-read.com>
>> This is to say that an engine that used this combustion chamber
>> technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of .15 to .20
>> lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
So what conditions would have to be met to get this low of a BSFC?
- Slower running? (Aircraft vs automotive engines)
- Extracting more energy from the burn before loosing it out the exhaust?
- Slower burn? (Less volatile fuel?)
Would be interesting to find out.
Jim C
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: | New Engine Technology - Dave Hertner's Reply |
RV-10 Listers,
Thank you to everyone who posted a reply to my question. For those who only
commented on the hypothetical engine, I would still like to hear your reply to
the question posed at the bottom of the post. I am in the process of designing
an engine around this patented and proven (there are working prototypes) combustion
chamber technology.
Some of you think that I am smoking something that I shouldn't and that is
fair considering the fact that I haven't given you all of the details. I did get
some interest though and that was ultimately my goal.
I am looking to go into business designing and building aircraft engines. Clean
sheet of paper stuff. As such, I have spent a great deal of time researching
engines that "propel" aircraft through the air. I came upon this new technology
and it can be adapted easily into an aircraft engine architecture. I am
working with an aeronautical engineer who specializes in propulsion and our first
order of business is to validate the technology and the claims made by its
inventor (PhD nuclear physicist).
Part of the process in preparing the business plan is to establish what the
customer actually wants rather than trying to ram something down their throats.
This is why I put out the question to you folks. I am a pilot and a RV-10 builder
and I know what I think. The problem is that it may not be what you are
all thinking. I am going to build my engine manufacturing company around the
wishes of the community that I want to serve. No more unsecured deposits that
you don't get returned when the engine isn't ready on time!! No more unsubstantiated
claims when it comes to horsepower and fuel consumption.
I was at Oshkosh last year and I heard all of the pitches. I watched people
write cheques for certain turbine engines. One couple was there all the way from
Australia. I wonder how they feel about writing that cheque now!! From the
inception, this company will be an aircraft engine manufacturer with all of the
proper practices you would expect in place before the first engine is sold.
I would love to explain this thing in more detail but I haven't secured the
license to use it yet and I don't want some other enterprising individual to
somehow get in there ahead of me. Suffice it to say that it is not a sterling
cycle engine and it is not and Otto cycle diesel engine. More than that I cannot
say.
Again, thanks for the comments on how you think the builder should be treated
and what information should be made available. Also, thanks for the offer to
be a Beta tester Dan I appreciate that. If anyone is interested in the bigger
picture here and might want to be a part of it, I would be happy to talk about
it off-line and after a non-disclosure agreement is signed.
Regards,
Dave Hertner
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: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Scott - Did you buy a new IO540 or a rebuilt one? I'm currently struggling with
that descition. I think your points are very well made and I agree with them!
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Schmidt
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 2:56 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
If you use an alternative engine be sure you check with your insurance company.
They are becoming very very picky concerning the engine you use. Turbines
are absolutely the worse to insure. This, combined with fuel burn, are the main
reasons you don't see more turbine Lancairs. Falcon has a list of approved
engines they will give you. But there basic rule is if you deviate from what
the manufacturer recommends, they probably won't even touch it.
When I first started building I was the same way. I wanted to use some kind
of diesel engine. But the fact is, no one has made any real progress to put diesels
in planes for the masses, except for maybe Diamond Aircraft. No one out
there is funded well enough to give me any confidence that they will be around
in the coming years. I was excited in 1998 or maybe it was 1999 when NASA
and Continental were teaming up to develop a liquid cooled diesel engine. But
that project went no where. I think there is a critical mass of people forming
right now that will cause diesel engines to take off and I feel Diamond Aircraft
will lead the way. They now have the diesel engines in their new twin and
once insurance companies and consumers build some confidence, investors will
then be willing to invest the proper capital to develop a strong program.
The one thing I do know is that Van's will not support any engine in the next
5 - 10 years except for Lycoming. And it sure is nice to open that firewall
forward kit and have all the hoses, baffles, air cleaner assembly, and exhaust
complete.
The other thing to consider is resale. Until the diesel engines are used much
more extensively, buyers of experimental aircraft will shy away from anything
that cannot be supported at most airports. This is one reason I went with the
Bendix injector instead of the Airflow Performance.
I also just wanted to mention that there have been many advancements in the old
540. The metallurgy of the pistons and cylinders has improved dramatically.
The Lightspeed ignition is a big improvement, the injectors are more balanced
for a better balance of temperatures, the castings are much smoother, engines
are balanced significantly better, and many more improvements. Today's IO-540
is a much better engine than even 5 years ago. I know I am talking like
someone who has recently invested in an IO-540 and I am trying to justify it (which
I have, and it will be delivered tomorrow). But I have also thought of every
scenario and engine combination but nothing looks as good as an IO-540 right
now. I don't see AVGAS going away in the next 10 years and you can still
buy it in bulk for $2.40 a gallon, today!
I sure would like to see some engine companies make some great breakthroughs
though. Turbo diesels will be the future but they are still 10 years away in
my opinion and I want to be flying this year.
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 8:17 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Dave
I also agree with what is here. I am looking at an alternative engine, and am
very interested in exploring this avenue. Things that would motivate me are test
cell running to prove TBO, and number of Aircraft installed on, I realize
to break into the market place you would need Beta testers, I am willing to do
that beta testing, but would be have to be at manufactures expense. If I am willing
to use my airframe, the least they could do is provide the engine for testing/
proof of concept.
Dan
40269
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn walters
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:10 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Dave Hertner wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was developed
by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his name. Let's also say
that the demonstrated efficiency of this combustion chamber technology is double
what is currently available. This is to say that an engine that used this
combustion chamber technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of .15
to .20 lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
That sounds good. I'm interested
This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and the torque curve
would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would not need a constant speed
propeller.
Big bonus. I'm more interested.
This engine would operate in an RPM range from ~300 to 3000rpm.
That's about as perfect a range as you can get.
It wouldn't need an ignition system
Now I'm a little sceptical. Hydraulic ignition (like a diesel) is harder to
start without some other ignition to get it started.
and it doesn't retain much heat so a small liquid cooling system would allow
you to have heat in the cabin.
That would certainly make cooling a non-issue and remove cooling drag. That's
a big bonus.
It is NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine nor is it a axial
turbine. The engine would be compact and be available in the exact horsepower
you require for your airframe. The engine would only be available as a part
of a complete firewall forward package.
But maybe you'll let us know what kind of engine it is??? Is it produceable
in a similar price range as present engine technology? Cheaper would be even
better.
So here is the question.
In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you with
regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information.
I'd have to see the dyno data and thermo data. A proof of concept engine flying
in an airplane would go far in removing y scepticism.
What would you have to see in place.
That airplane flying.
What would you have to see demonstrated.
That airplane flying. To TBO would be good. I understand that that would take
some time, but running in a test cell could be a great indicator.
What level of comfort would you have to have with the company before you would
place your order?
Jim Bede taught me never to buy the 'best thing since sliced bread' until there
was significant (let's say 100) examples completed. Of course, given a significant
price break to beta test an engine would go far in reaching that 100
piece goal.
Hypothetically!
Well, I'd love to see it. I have no hangups with alternative engines. I'd hypothetically
consider one for my -10. Lemme know when the hypothetical becomes
a reality ..... or do you plan to keep this one all to yourself???
Linn
do not archive
Dave Hertner
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: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Scott Schmidt wrote:
> If you use an alternative engine be sure you check with your insurance
> company. They are becoming very very picky concerning the engine you
> use. Turbines are absolutely the worse to insure. This, combined
> with fuel burn, are the main reasons you don't see more turbine
> Lancairs. Falcon has a list of approved engines they will give you.
> But there basic rule is if you deviate from what the manufacturer
> recommends, they probably won't even touch it.
>
Which is why I only carry liability on my aircraft. I only carry that
because the hangar owner (county) requires it. You have to weigh the
cost with the odds. If you're prone to doing stupid things or being
distracted easily, then by all means insure yourself. If you plan your
flights well, don't go IFR flying with a VFR ticket etc. then what are
the odds that you'll bust your bird and require the insurance company to
bail yourself out??? Short story: It cost me an extra $1000/year to
have hull insurance on my Pitts when I first flew it. The second year I
cancelled the hull. Thirteen years later, I hurt my Pitts and it cost
around $3000 to fix it. So, without adjusting for inflation, there was
$12K in 'that big bank in the sky'. I'm still $9K ahead. Oh yeah, the
accident was a learning experience and I'll not have the same thing
happen again. The other point is that the insurance company will want
you to have a 'professional' fix the plane. Think about how many
hackers there are out there that will 'professionally' do a crappy job.
> When I first started building I was the same way. I wanted to use
> some kind of diesel engine. But the fact is, no one has made any real
> progress to put diesels in planes for the masses, except for maybe
> Diamond Aircraft. No one out there is funded well enough to give me
> any confidence that they will be around in the coming years. I was
> excited in 1998 or maybe it was 1999 when NASA and Continental were
> teaming up to develop a liquid cooled diesel engine. But that project
> went no where. I think there is a critical mass of people forming
> right now that will cause diesel engines to take off and I feel
> Diamond Aircraft will lead the way. They now have the diesel engines
> in their new twin and once insurance companies and consumers build
> some confidence, investors will then be willing to invest the proper
> capital to develop a strong program.
>
> The one thing I do know is that Van's will not support any engine in
> the next 5 - 10 years except for Lycoming. And it sure is nice to
> open that firewall forward kit and have all the hoses, baffles, air
> cleaner assembly, and exhaust complete.
>
The FWF kit is a good point. However, diesels are showing up more often
in aircraft configurations. And there's teh rotaries too. Turbines
aren't too well suited for the flying most of us do. Down low they're
gas hogs.
> The other thing to consider is resale. Until the diesel engines are
> used much more extensively, buyers of experimental aircraft will shy
> away from anything that cannot be supported at most airports. This is
> one reason I went with the Bendix injector instead of the Airflow
> Performance.
>
I wonder just how many buyers of an injected-engine-powered airplane ask
about what type system is installed? If a buyer is turned off by some
choice made in accessorizing the airplane (best word I could come up
with) then they probably weren't a serious buyer anyway. I myself
wouldn't have heartburn over a purchase of an airplane with an exotic
powerplant ..... as long as I did my homework. Let's face it, some
builders have made some stupid decisions over the years, but I don't see
being a little creative as a down-side. If it works and has been for a
while, then where's the beef???
> I also just wanted to mention that there have been many advancements
> in the old 540. The metallurgy of the pistons and cylinders has
> improved dramatically. The Lightspeed ignition is a big improvement,
> the injectors are more balanced for a better balance of temperatures,
> the castings are much smoother, engines are balanced significantly
> better, and many more improvements. Today's IO-540 is a much better
> engine than even 5 years ago. I know I am talking like someone who
> has recently invested in an IO-540 and I am trying to justify it
> (which I have, and it will be delivered tomorrow). But I have also
> thought of every scenario and engine combination but nothing looks as
> good as an IO-540 right now. I don't see AVGAS going away in the next
> 10 years and you can still buy it in bulk for $2.40 a gallon, today!
>
>
>
> I sure would like to see some engine companies make some great
> breakthroughs though. Turbo diesels will be the future but they are
> still 10 years away in my opinion and I want to be flying this year.
>
By the time I'm getting ready to decide on an engine for my -10, there
just may be something else out there. For you, I think you've made a
very logical choice, and that's the decision I'd have made in your
shoes. The one problem with an alternative engine ..... if you can't
work on it yourself ..... is pulling up to an FBO with your rotary or
diesel and trying to find an A&P that will work on it!!!
Linn
do not archive
>
>
>
>
> Scott Schmidt
>
> sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
>
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd,
> Daniel R.
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 8:17 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
>
>
>
> Dave
>
> I also agree with what is here. I am looking at an alternative engine,
> and am very interested in exploring this avenue. Things that would
> motivate me are test cell running to prove TBO, and number of Aircraft
> installed on, I realize to break into the market place you would need
> Beta testers, I am willing to do that beta testing, but would be have
> to be at manufactures expense. If I am willing to use my airframe, the
> least they could do is provide the engine for testing/ proof of concept.
>
> Dan
>
> 40269
>
>
>
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn walters
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:10 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
>
> Dave Hertner wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
>
>
> I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
>
>
>
> Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was
> developed by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his
> name. Let's also say that the demonstrated efficiency of this
> combustion chamber technology is double what is currently available.
> This is to say that an engine that used this combustion chamber
> technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of .15 to .20
> lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
>
> That sounds good. I'm interested
>
> This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and the
> torque curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would not
> need a constant speed propeller.
>
> Big bonus. I'm more interested.
>
> This engine would operate in an RPM range from ~300 to 3000rpm.
>
> That's about as perfect a range as you can get.
>
> It wouldn't need an ignition system
>
> Now I'm a little sceptical. Hydraulic ignition (like a diesel) is
> harder to start without some other ignition to get it started.
>
> and it doesn't retain much heat so a small liquid cooling system would
> allow you to have heat in the cabin.
>
> That would certainly make cooling a non-issue and remove cooling
> drag. That's a big bonus.
>
> It is NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine nor is
> it a axial turbine. The engine would be compact and be available in
> the exact horsepower you require for your airframe. The engine would
> only be available as a part of a complete firewall forward package.
>
> But maybe you'll let us know what kind of engine it is??? Is it
> produceable in a similar price range as present engine technology?
> Cheaper would be even better.
>
> So here is the question.
>
>
>
> In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to
> you with regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information.
>
> I'd have to see the dyno data and thermo data. A proof of concept
> engine flying in an airplane would go far in removing y scepticism.
>
> What would you have to see in place.
>
> That airplane flying.
>
> What would you have to see demonstrated.
>
> That airplane flying. To TBO would be good. I understand that that
> would take some time, but running in a test cell could be a great
> indicator.
>
> What level of comfort would you have to have with the company before
> you would place your order?
>
> Jim Bede taught me never to buy the 'best thing since sliced bread'
> until there was significant (let's say 100) examples completed. Of
> course, given a significant price break to beta test an engine would
> go far in reaching that 100 piece goal.
>
> Hypothetically!
>
> Well, I'd love to see it. I have no hangups with alternative
> engines. I'd hypothetically consider one for my -10. Lemme know when
> the hypothetical becomes a reality ..... or do you plan to keep this
> one all to yourself???
> Linn
> do not archive
>
>
>
> Dave Hertner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Scott - I just wanted to comment, for what ever it's worth, on the no hull coverage
decision. I'm not sure about everyone else, but when I'm finished with my
10 I know I will have in excess of $150m in it, if I'm lucky, and probably north
of there near $200m. I have owned 3 factory planes over that last 16 years
and I've luckily never had an incident, and hope I never do, but there could
be things outside of my control that could do massive damage to the plane and
possible destroy it.
I have a friend who owns a Citabria and he bought it new. On his very first flight
he crashed it and nearly destroyed it. He picked up the plane and was flying
it home. He put his brief case on the rear seat, you can see the punch line
coming, and when he got to our airport he was in the landing phase and the brief
case in the rear was jamming the control stick and he wasn't able to flare
and crashed the plane. Big time expense. In hind site he should have never put
the brief case in the rear or should have taken out the control stick, but I
guess that's why they call it an accident.
Or for example something somehow shorts out in the electrical system, not your
fault defective part or something, and the plane ends up with a large fire damage
or you have a lighting strike, which fries your avionics stack. or, god forbid,
you have an engine or system failure over some bad terrain with a lot of
trees or buildings are in your landing zone and the plane is severely damaged
or destroyed, I hope we lived :>}. At that point it was like Las Vegas and it
put nearly $200m on the line. I guess we could do the same thing with our houses
or cars but you take a huge financial risk.
I've gotten a preliminary estimate for coverage of my 10, with my total time and
ratings, and it would appear it will be around $3000 a year or less, which includes
liability. It would seem to me that I can't save that much, from a risk
reward standpoint, for me to take that type of risk. I'm definitely not questioning
your decision not to cover the hull, that's not for me to judge, but this
plane isn't a Cessna 150 or a Cub. If I were to somehow be able to avoid the
whole $3000 per year, which I couldn't, in 10 years I would have saved $30,000.
I've still got over 150m on the table at risk.
You really have to count on the lady luck gods to make sure you don't lose by not
insuring the hull. I hate paying the premiums,but I'm also afraid of the alternative.
For whatever that's worth.
----- Original Message -----
From: linn walters
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Scott Schmidt wrote:
If you use an alternative engine be sure you check with your insurance company.
They are becoming very very picky concerning the engine you use. Turbines
are absolutely the worse to insure. This, combined with fuel burn, are the
main reasons you don't see more turbine Lancairs. Falcon has a list of approved
engines they will give you. But there basic rule is if you deviate from what
the manufacturer recommends, they probably won't even touch it.
Which is why I only carry liability on my aircraft. I only carry that because
the hangar owner (county) requires it. You have to weigh the cost with the
odds. If you're prone to doing stupid things or being distracted easily, then
by all means insure yourself. If you plan your flights well, don't go IFR flying
with a VFR ticket etc. then what are the odds that you'll bust your bird
and require the insurance company to bail yourself out??? Short story: It cost
me an extra $1000/year to have hull insurance on my Pitts when I first flew
it. The second year I cancelled the hull. Thirteen years later, I hurt my Pitts
and it cost around $3000 to fix it. So, without adjusting for inflation,
there was $12K in 'that big bank in the sky'. I'm still $9K ahead. Oh yeah,
the accident was a learning experience and I'll not have the same thing happen
again. The other point is that the insurance company will want you to have
a 'professional' fix the plane. Think about how many hackers there are out there
that will 'professionally' do a crappy job.
When I first started building I was the same way. I wanted to use some kind
of diesel engine. But the fact is, no one has made any real progress to put
diesels in planes for the masses, except for maybe Diamond Aircraft. No one
out there is funded well enough to give me any confidence that they will be around
in the coming years. I was excited in 1998 or maybe it was 1999 when NASA
and Continental were teaming up to develop a liquid cooled diesel engine.
But that project went no where. I think there is a critical mass of people forming
right now that will cause diesel engines to take off and I feel Diamond
Aircraft will lead the way. They now have the diesel engines in their new twin
and once insurance companies and consumers build some confidence, investors
will then be willing to invest the proper capital to develop a strong program.
The one thing I do know is that Van's will not support any engine in the next
5 - 10 years except for Lycoming. And it sure is nice to open that firewall
forward kit and have all the hoses, baffles, air cleaner assembly, and exhaust
complete.
The FWF kit is a good point. However, diesels are showing up more often in aircraft
configurations. And there's teh rotaries too. Turbines aren't too well
suited for the flying most of us do. Down low they're gas hogs.
The other thing to consider is resale. Until the diesel engines are used
much more extensively, buyers of experimental aircraft will shy away from anything
that cannot be supported at most airports. This is one reason I went with
the Bendix injector instead of the Airflow Performance.
I wonder just how many buyers of an injected-engine-powered airplane ask about
what type system is installed? If a buyer is turned off by some choice made
in accessorizing the airplane (best word I could come up with) then they probably
weren't a serious buyer anyway. I myself wouldn't have heartburn over a
purchase of an airplane with an exotic powerplant ..... as long as I did my homework.
Let's face it, some builders have made some stupid decisions over the
years, but I don't see being a little creative as a down-side. If it works and
has been for a while, then where's the beef???
I also just wanted to mention that there have been many advancements in the
old 540. The metallurgy of the pistons and cylinders has improved dramatically.
The Lightspeed ignition is a big improvement, the injectors are more balanced
for a better balance of temperatures, the castings are much smoother, engines
are balanced significantly better, and many more improvements. Today's
IO-540 is a much better engine than even 5 years ago. I know I am talking like
someone who has recently invested in an IO-540 and I am trying to justify it
(which I have, and it will be delivered tomorrow). But I have also thought of
every scenario and engine combination but nothing looks as good as an IO-540
right now. I don't see AVGAS going away in the next 10 years and you can still
buy it in bulk for $2.40 a gallon, today!
I sure would like to see some engine companies make some great breakthroughs
though. Turbo diesels will be the future but they are still 10 years away in
my opinion and I want to be flying this year.
By the time I'm getting ready to decide on an engine for my -10, there just may
be something else out there. For you, I think you've made a very logical choice,
and that's the decision I'd have made in your shoes. The one problem with
an alternative engine ..... if you can't work on it yourself ..... is pulling
up to an FBO with your rotary or diesel and trying to find an A&P that will
work on it!!!
Linn
do not archive
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 8:17 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Dave
I also agree with what is here. I am looking at an alternative engine, and
am very interested in exploring this avenue. Things that would motivate me are
test cell running to prove TBO, and number of Aircraft installed on, I realize
to break into the market place you would need Beta testers, I am willing to
do that beta testing, but would be have to be at manufactures expense. If I am
willing to use my airframe, the least they could do is provide the engine for
testing/ proof of concept.
Dan
40269
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn walters
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:10 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Dave Hertner wrote:
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
Hello Everyone,
I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was developed
by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his name. Let's also
say that the demonstrated efficiency of this combustion chamber technology is
double what is currently available. This is to say that an engine that used this
combustion chamber technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of .15
to .20 lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
That sounds good. I'm interested
This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and the torque curve
would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would not need a constant
speed propeller.
Big bonus. I'm more interested.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
This engine would operate in an RPM range from ~300 to 3000rpm.
That's about as perfect a range as you can get.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
It wouldn't need an ignition system
Now I'm a little sceptical. Hydraulic ignition (like a diesel) is harder to
start without some other ignition to get it started.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
and it doesn't retain much heat so a small liquid cooling system would allow
you to have heat in the cabin.
That would certainly make cooling a non-issue and remove cooling drag. That's
a big bonus.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
It is NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine nor is it a axial
turbine. The engine would be compact and be available in the exact horsepower
you require for your airframe. The engine would only be available as a part
of a complete firewall forward package.
But maybe you'll let us know what kind of engine it is??? Is it produceable
in a similar price range as present engine technology? Cheaper would be even
better.
So here is the question.
In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you with
regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information.
I'd have to see the dyno data and thermo data. A proof of concept engine flying
in an airplane would go far in removing y scepticism.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
What would you have to see in place.
That airplane flying.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
What would you have to see demonstrated.
That airplane flying. To TBO would be good. I understand that that would
take some time, but running in a test cell could be a great indicator.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
What level of comfort would you have to have with the company before you would
place your order?
Jim Bede taught me never to buy the 'best thing since sliced bread' until there
was significant (let's say 100) examples completed. Of course, given a significant
price break to beta test an engine would go far in reaching that 100
piece goal.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
Hypothetically!
Well, I'd love to see it. I have no hangups with alternative engines. I'd
hypothetically consider one for my -10. Lemme know when the hypothetical becomes
a reality ..... or do you plan to keep this one all to yourself???
Linn
do not archive
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
Dave Hertner
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: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Has anyone had any experience with the insurance companies' actions on this
matter? I would think that if I have earned my repairman's certificate and
I built the plane the insurance company would have to agree with the FAA
that I am a "professional" when it comes to that airplane at least. I've
never had a hull policy on an airplane, but I know in the case of two
separate car accidents I had (both times I was rear ended while stopped at a
light. sometimes things happen that are beyond your control, which is why I
carry insurance) the insurance company (state farm) appraised the damage and
cut me a check do with as I pleased. Not even a requirement that I actually
get the work done. My understanding is that is a fairly standard practice
in the automotive insurance business, but like I said, I don't really have
any experience with hull insurance for aviation.
Thanks,
James
#40400
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn walters
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Scott Schmidt wrote:
[snip]
The other point is that the insurance company will want you to have a
'professional' fix the plane. Think about how many hackers there are out
there that will 'professionally' do a crappy job.
[snip]
do not archive
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: | Re: Strobe wiring (and a tip) |
Mani, I have them in my -6. They work fine.
Anh
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy DeBauw
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:27 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
Several people I know do just that. Mainly it is to keep the high voltage away
from any fuel. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mani Ravee
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 5:09 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
Just a thought. What about those Whelan strobes with individual power supplies
that can be mounted in the wing tips. They have more power like higher joules.
They only require a 18g wire to supply power to them. Anyone plan on using
them?
Mani
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:21 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
It took all 15' to get from the wing tip to root. I have not ran the rest
but I'm sure another 10' for a total of 25' will get you there with some to spare.
Anh
Maryland
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 5:49 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
Hello
Does anyone have some good numbers for the length of strobe wire required
if my strobe power supply is mounted on the floor behind the aft baggage bulkhead
next to the AP pitch servo. I don't plan on making a connection at the wing
root, but I need to allow for some extra wire in that area and on the ends.
thanks
Chris Lucas
#40072
Tip,
I was having issues with J-channel rubbing against the wing ribs so I increased
the hole center line dimension down the j-channel just a hair (1/32 inch)
to move the J-end of the channel away from the rib a bit instead of filing
more out of each rib. I also took a little material of the j-end of the channel
with a belt sander.
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: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
DNA: do not archive
Its-Bogus: do not forward to list
--- MIME Errors ---
A message with no text/plain section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using plaintext formatting.
NOTE! This error can also occur when the poster of the
message has a specific type of computer virus. This virus
WAS NOT forwarded on to the List. The poster should be
informed of the potential problem with their system as soon
as possible.
--- MIME Errors ---
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: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
DNA: do not archive
Its-Bogus: do not forward to list
--- MIME Errors ---
A message with no text/plain section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using plaintext formatting.
NOTE! This error can also occur when the poster of the
message has a specific type of computer virus. This virus
WAS NOT forwarded on to the List. The poster should be
informed of the potential problem with their system as soon
as possible.
--- MIME Errors ---
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: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?Innodyn is installing
one of their engines in a -10 as we speak. I would expect it to be airborne
soon. We'll see.
Anh
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen)
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 10:46 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
I would also like to add a review by a independent and respected lab/group
to verify the SFC, BHP, and other numbers in addition to the company financials
and business plan. The biggest thing that has made everyone gun shy nowadays
are all these companies (Innodyn, I'm looking at you) that have what seem to
be great numbers but no independent or otherwise published numbers to back up
what they say. This combined with the industry wide problem of saying "we'll
be in production in the next 12 months" for about 10 years.
I love the idea of alt engines, but I will not pay close to the cost of a known
result (IO-540) for an unknown result (looking at you now Crossflow). Just
doesn't make sense to me. Egg is probably the closest to making this gap go
away but something about his operation makes me nervous. Don't know what, and
it's unsubstantiated, but it's there. Might be the constant "improvements"
to the engines year after year. One thing that bothers me in aviation is a lack
of repeatability. If it can't be repeated consistently, I don't want it to
be something critical. Electronics not so much a problem, but mechanical definitely!
And an engine being modified yearly doesn't leave much historical data
in it's wake. This is the single thing that has allowed Cont and Lyc to remain
at the top of the game all this time.
You want to be in business, only three things will kill you in a heartbeat.
Bad customer service, bad product, bad marketing.
My 2 cents
Michael Sausen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:00 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
What would it take? (If I hadn't already bought my engine...)
A full set of operating specs, including an estimated TBO.
A warranty that would cover at least a couple hundred hours.
A flying version of the engine, in a similar airframe, complete with performance
specs.
A company that can go from an order with deposit (not more than
50%) to actual delivery, within 4-6 months....with full refund of deposit if
they can't meet that delivery.
Photos of the actual FWF kit, and installation, on the RV-10.
Cold weather and higher altitude performance numbers....(this sounds suspiciously
like a diesel) Oh yeah, and back to the top of the list....#1 Guaranteed
cost including FWF kit that does not exceed that of a new Lyc. IO-540 equipped
the same.
That's what I'd like to see.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Dave Hertner wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
>
> Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was
> developed by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his
> name. Let's also say that the demonstrated efficiency of this
> combustion chamber technology is _double_ what is currently available.
> This is to say that an engine that used this combustion chamber
> technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of .15 to .20
> lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
>
> This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and the
> torque curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would not
> need a constant speed propeller. This engine would operate in an RPM
> range from ~300 to 3000rpm. It wouldn't need an ignition system and it
> doesn't retain much heat so a small liquid cooling system would allow
> you to have heat in the cabin. It is NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an
> Otto cycle piston engine nor is it a axial turbine. The engine would
> be compact and be available in the exact horsepower you require for
> your airframe. The engine would only be available as a part of a
> complete firewall forward package.
>
> So here is the question.
>
> In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to
> you with regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information.
> What would you have to see in place. What would you have to see
> demonstrated. What level of comfort would you have to have with the
> company before you would place your order? Hypothetically!
>
> Dave Hertner
RV10-List Email Forum -
more:
bsp;
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
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: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
DNA: do not archive
Its-Bogus: do not forward to list
--- MIME Errors ---
A message with no text/plain section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using plaintext formatting.
NOTE! This error can also occur when the poster of the
message has a specific type of computer virus. This virus
WAS NOT forwarded on to the List. The poster should be
informed of the potential problem with their system as soon
as possible.
--- MIME Errors ---
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: | Self Contained Strobes |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
Deleted the other post on this, but...
Which self contained strobe model from Whelen have you used in your
wingtips? SACF?
Thanks...
Sean #40303 (waiting on wing kit)
http://rv10.stephensville.com
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 |
|
Oh boy!
The Emp kit arrived today. Actually, a buddy from work took me down to the
ABF terminal with his truck and trailer to pick up the two boxes. After
bringing it back to the house I had an agonizingly long day at work until I
could get home and start unpacking that puppy.
Weelll, 7 hours later I'm all done, I was only shorted one nutplate in one
of the bags (of the ones I could count things in; I don't have an accurate
scales). That's an awesome job done by the picking and shipping department
at Van's. No damage in transit, and I'm ready to settle in and read all the
info and get to drilling..
Rob #40392
N524RX reserved
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 |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=q6RNvozNDfP5SFbzJb1Dz4g3shwb0GcN2elqtkycVqvJ3Z2yvu9F+97TipvvXLxPoewFuRinBCm2DzRl0xtM51kAqrnC6btCcKgc7ufdKeiYmXIGyc+6cZBC+P0U3bmre+MILRJL+HRWlyE+FIBqZYrcc5PDphbupnHx5GaHAaA=
;
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - Dave Hertner's Reply |
Hello, Mark Lamon here. I would be interested in helping you in any way I can.
"I'm building a -10 #40167. Please let me know. Thanks.
Dave Hertner <effectus@rogers.com> wrote: RV-10 Listers,
Thank you to everyone who posted a reply to my question. For those who only
commented on the hypothetical engine, I would still like to hear your reply to
the question posed at the bottom of the post. I am in the process of designing
an engine around this patented and proven (there are working prototypes) combustion
chamber technology.
Some of you think that I am smoking something that I shouldn't and that is
fair considering the fact that I haven't given you all of the details. I did get
some interest though and that was ultimately my goal.
I am looking to go into business designing and building aircraft engines. Clean
sheet of paper stuff. As such, I have spent a great deal of time researching
engines that "propel" aircraft through the air. I came upon this new technology
and it can be adapted easily into an aircraft engine architecture. I am
working with an aeronautical engineer who specializes in propulsion and our first
order of business is to validate the technology and the claims made by its
inventor (PhD nuclear physicist).
Part of the process in preparing the business plan is to establish what the
customer actually wants rather than trying to ram something down their throats.
This is why I put out the question to you folks. I am a pilot and a RV-10 builder
and I know what I think. The problem is that it may not be what you are
all thinking. I am going to build my engine manufacturing company around the
wishes of the community that I want to serve. No more unsecured deposits that
you don't get returned when the engine isn't ready on time!! No more unsubstantiated
claims when it comes to horsepower and fuel consumption.
I was at Oshkosh last year and I heard all of the pitches. I watched people
write cheques for certain turbine engines. One couple was there all the way from
Australia. I wonder how they feel about writing that cheque now!! From the
inception, this company will be an aircraft engine manufacturer with all of the
proper practices you would expect in place before the first engine is sold.
I would love to explain this thing in more detail but I haven't secured the
license to use it yet and I don't want some other enterprising individual to
somehow get in there ahead of me. Suffice it to say that it is not a sterling
cycle engine and it is not and Otto cycle diesel engine. More than that I cannot
say.
Again, thanks for the comments on how you think the builder should be treated
and what information should be made available. Also, thanks for the offer to
be a Beta tester Dan I appreciate that. If anyone is interested in the bigger
picture here and might want to be a part of it, I would be happy to talk about
it off-line and after a non-disclosure agreement is signed.
Regards,
Dave Hertner
---------------------------------
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! --
|