Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:36 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
2. 04:40 AM - Re: Self Contained Strobes (Mani Ravee)
3. 04:49 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Wayne Edgerton)
4. 05:02 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Wayne Edgerton)
5. 05:26 AM - Re: empennage extras... (Scott Lewis)
6. 06:21 AM - RV-10 Insurance group - Was: New Engine Technology (Tim Olson)
7. 06:31 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Tim Olson)
8. 06:35 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Wayne Edgerton)
9. 06:36 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Rick)
10. 06:57 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Jesse Saint)
11. 07:18 AM - Alternative Risk Insurance (long) (Rick)
12. 07:50 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? ()
13. 08:06 AM - Re: Re: Switching to a 7A (Paul Folbrecht)
14. 08:06 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (JOHN STARN)
15. 08:10 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (John W. Cox)
16. 08:22 AM - RV-10 MT Propeller group buy (LessDragProd@aol.com)
17. 08:49 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Rick)
18. 08:50 AM - Re: empennage extras... (Randy DeBauw)
19. 08:52 AM - Re: RV-10 Insurance group - Was: New Engine Technology (Tim Olson)
20. 08:55 AM - Re: Re: Switching to a 7A (Rick)
21. 09:13 AM - Re: Alternative Risk Insurance (long) (Jim Combs)
22. 09:27 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (son hoang)
23. 09:43 AM - Re: RV-10 Insurance group - Was: New Engine Technology (Rick)
24. 09:44 AM - Re: empennage extras... (Rick)
25. 09:44 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Barry Chapman)
26. 09:57 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Rick)
27. 10:03 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Rick)
28. 10:13 AM - Oshkosh (Jesse Saint)
29. 10:20 AM - Re: RV-10 MT Propeller group buy (son hoang)
30. 10:33 AM - Re: Oshkosh (Rick)
31. 10:36 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Scott Schmidt)
32. 10:42 AM - Re: Alternative Risk Insurance (long) (Darton Steve)
33. 11:17 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (brian bollaert)
34. 11:32 AM - Re: RV-10 MT Propeller group buy (LessDragProd@aol.com)
35. 12:03 PM - Anyone close to flying with MT Prop? (Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr))
36. 12:10 PM - Almost here ;) (James Ochs)
37. 12:14 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Rick)
38. 12:20 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
39. 12:28 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Scott Schmidt)
40. 12:38 PM - Re: Alternative Risk Insurance (long) (Robert)
41. 01:01 PM - Re: RV-10 Insurance group - Was: New Engine Technology (Jesse Saint)
42. 01:17 PM - Re: Oshkosh (Jesse Saint)
43. 02:39 PM - Fuel selector valve (Chris , Susie McGough)
44. 04:01 PM - Re: Fuel selector valve (Jesse Saint)
45. 04:15 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Jack Sargeant)
46. 04:33 PM - Re: Switching to a 7A (William Curtis)
47. 04:38 PM - Re: Fuel selector valve (James Ochs)
48. 05:02 PM - Re: Re: Switching to a 7A (John Jessen)
49. 05:51 PM - Re: Re: Switching to a 7A (Wayne Edgerton)
50. 05:53 PM - Re: Fuel selector valve (Mani Ravee)
51. 06:14 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (bob.kaufmann)
52. 06:15 PM - Mark Lamon #40269 (Dave Hertner)
53. 08:14 PM - Re: Fuel selector valve (Stein Bruch)
54. 09:16 PM - Re: Fuel selector valve (James Ochs)
55. 09:53 PM - Re: Fuel selector valve (JOHN STARN)
56. 10:24 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (John W. Cox)
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: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
If you want an IO-540, I'd buy it sooner rather than later. 400 RV-10 kits are
making a definate impression on the law of supply and demand and prices are climbing
. . .
TDT
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Wayne Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 <mailto:sschmidt@ussynthetic.com>
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
=09
________________________________
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
=09
________________________________
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:
=09
=09
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.
=09
=09
This engine would operate in an RPM range from ~300 to 3000rpm.
That's about as perfect a range as you can get.
=09
=09
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.
=09
=09
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.
=09
=09
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.
=09
=09
What would you have to see in place.
That airplane flying.
=09
=09
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.
=09
=09
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.
=09
=09
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
=09
=09
Dave Hertner
=09
=09
=09
________________________________
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: | Self Contained Strobes |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Mani Ravee" <maniravee@sbcglobal.net>
If you are referring to my post.... It is the Whelen A490 TSCF. I have them
all around on my C172 and they really light her up.
Mani
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sean Stephens
Subject: RV10-List: 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 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: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Got me that time :>} You are correct of coarse.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
Wayne,
Please tell me you meant 150 "K" not "m"....I would be going after a Gulfstream
for that kinda money. :D
Rick S.
40185
Wings
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: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Hello Rick - If you remember the Roman Numerals what was did the letter M represent?
You got it thousands :>} Wayne
C100 D500 M1000
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
Wayne,
Please tell me you meant 150 "K" not "m"....I would be going after a Gulfstream
for that kinda money. :D
Rick S.
40185
Wings
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: | Re: empennage extras... |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Scott Lewis <rv10@tpg.com.au>
G'day,
I did the same, however the bit with the black goop in it unscrews from
the main cartridge (at least it did on mine, from Vans). I didn't need
to cut or drill anything. Use the black stick to push the plunger in
each part.
Seeya,
Scott Lewis
RV-10 40172 VH-DRS
Adelaide, South Australia
Randy DeBauw wrote:
> Do you want a hot tip James. Take the 3.5 oz container and look at it
> close. The product is separated when you get it and if you keep it
> separated you can use it in small amounts as you need it. I took the
> small rod end and cut it off. Then I drilled a 1/4" hole in the large
> tube end and made pushed out as much as I needed. You then can push out
> the black part to get a 10 to 1 mix. I used this method for all of the
> trailing edges and then some with just 1 3.5 oz tube. Randy
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-10 Insurance group - Was: New Engine Technology |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Ok, so that would interest me...since we have 400+ RV-10 builders,
I'd think it would actually soon be practical to start talking
about an RV-10 insurance pool group with those upfront costs
of, say $5,000 (your rough figure) to insure ourselves.
The question then comes....what do you do if you get that guy who
wants an alternative engine....maybe that awesome Turbo Supercharged
3 cylinder Geo Metro engine.....or maybe the GM 6.5 Turbodiesel...
powering his RV-10. Now you start getting back in the same boat as
the insurance companies....I'd never want to insure that guy in the
pool unless his premiums were MUCH higher than the tried and true.
Sad facts for the alternative engine buyers.
But, Rick, since you're the insurance guru, if you ever contemplate
setting up such a group, and work the costs and figures, I might
truly be interested in sending my check that way, because it's
sure not going to make me happy to send it to some other place.
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Rick wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
> Hey.....bottom line? Risk retention...Scott has chosen to accept the
> cost of his aircraft as his retention...or in laymens terms, he has
> a... lets, say $100,000 deductible. I'm not joking here, get ready
> folks...this is the wave of the future in the insurance biz... How about
> we all set up a risk retention group, we put our premium into an account
> instead of the insurance company's pocket, broker out excess coverage
> for losses over $150,000, manage our "contributions" Pay dividends back
> to the members of the group who have participated for say three years
> with no losses and the group manages it's own destiny to include claims.
> Only have to set up a thrid party administrator to handle reciept of the
> contributions and manage the finacial end for say 15% to include claims
> managment. Might take a $5000+ dollar investment up front depending on
> how many people were interested.
>
> 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: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Ok, so if we're going to start valuing our planes using Roman Numerals
now, I guess we're going to have to all spend a bit of time re-learning
them from school.
Currently, my spreadsheet shows the overall cost of my RV-10 coming
in at precisely:
$ MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMCCCLVI
This was converted using this site:
http://www.convertit.com/Go/Maps/Calculators/Math/Roman_Numerals_Converter.ASP
Oh, and my signature now should read:
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #CLXX
Posted on the date of: Dies Iovis v Maius MMV Gregorian (Latin)
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Wayne Edgerton wrote:
> Hello Rick - If you remember the Roman Numerals what was did the
> letter M represent? You got it thousands :>} Wayne
>
> C=100 D=500 M=1000
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Rick <mailto:ricksked@earthlink.net> *To:*
> rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com> *Sent:*
> Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:59 PM *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: New Engine
> Technology - What would it take?
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Rick Wayne,
>
> Please tell me you meant 150 "K" not "m"....I would be going after a
> Gulfstream for that kinda money. :D
>
> Rick S. 40185 ========================================= Features
> Subscriptions ====================================
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Actually Rick K is a computer term which represent 1024bytes so K is 24 to high
for my notation :>}
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Edgerton
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Got me that time :>} You are correct of coarse.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
Wayne,
Please tell me you meant 150 "K" not "m"....I would be going after a Gulfstream
for that kinda money. :D
Rick S.
40185
Features Subscriptions
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: | 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 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: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
I guess I will add my $.02 on the insurance thing. We worked on getting
hull insurance on a PA-14 that we fixed up for filming a movie. We had
$100,000 in the plane and the insurance company would only give us up to
$30,000 in hull coverage. That way, if anything happens, we they prorate
the damage based on their value of the airplane and either fix it or pay us
our $30,000 and take the plane. It was a no-brainer to self-insure on that
one.
Liability insurance is usually a good idea in my opinion. Anybody who owns
an aircraft has to have a lot of money, right, so if I get hurt I am going
to sue their socks off. The chances of hurting somebody outside of the
airplane in an accident is much lower than in a car, so the insurance
companies can give decent rates on liability. They're really not taking
very much risk because risk equals losing money to them. They sign up a ton
of people to pay more than they should pay and then get a big policy from
somebody else to cover them if they get too many claims.
On hull coverage, it can start getting out of hand. How many things can
happen to an airplane to cause damage? A rough landing, a break locks up on
landing and you hit a runway light with your prop (I experienced that a
couple of weeks ago, not as the pilot), hangar rash, lightning strike, short
in wiring causing a fire, etc. Most of these do not have the potential of
causing the insurance company as to pay as much as in a liability lawsuit,
but there is a much better chance in them happening. They make sure you pay
more than the chances of you having a problem times the cost of fixing the
problem. Either way, you are in Las Vegas dropping your money somewhere,
right? Either you are betting on needing the insurance to pay more than you
are paying in insurance, or you are betting the opposite.
I have spent a lot of time in South America. People drive crazy down there.
Much crazier than here, I would say, but I have only ever seen two accidents
in all my time there (I didn't see them happen, just saw the people standing
around a wrecked car). I have seen that hundreds of times here. I have
come to the conclusion that one of the biggest reasons that people drive
what seems to be more carelessly in South America, but have fewer accidents,
is that they are actually being more careful. They only do things that they
KNOW they can get by with. If somebody is in their lane going the other
way, they don't care about right-of-way, they get out of the way. They
don't have insurance. If their car gets wrecked, they are out of a car.
For them, buying a car is more of an investment then us buying an airplane.
They can't afford to lose it, but nobody will insure it. They take much
better care because they have everything to lose. Here, everybody
(including me) knows that if something happens, their insurance company will
take care of it, especially if it is a serious wreck. We drive with our
knee while eating a hamburger and talking on the cell phone, all on the
interstate at 80mph. If somebody is in our lane, they shouldn't be there,
we have the right-of-way, so we're going to ride up on their bumper a little
bit to let them know that we saw them cut us off. Again, if something
happens, there's the insurance company.
All this to say, that we will probably not get hull coverage unless it is
very cheap, which $250/month is not. After all, we built the airplane the
first time and can probably fix it if there is a problem a lot cheaper than
taking it to an A&P, which the insurance company would require, especially
if they are going to continue insuring us, which is doubtful. We are now
too much of a risk to them. Take the risk out of the pool and drop
$250/month in income = good business decision.
On your comment about car insurance and homeowners insurance, I do admit
that I have both. I pay a total of $95/month for 3 cars (only one with comp
and collision because it is not mine) and another $35/month for homeowners.
The car insurance is required by law and I carry the minimums. If I wreck
it, they can have it. They can't take my house and probably can't take any
of my kids, so the lawyers can have my car and do what they will with it.
I realize that I am running a risk, but the risk of losing my insurance
money is very high and the risk of losing the money I invested in my
airplane is very low. I will put my money where there is low risk of losing
it.right back in my pocket.
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: 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 <mailto:lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
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.
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:
<!--[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 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: | Alternative Risk Insurance (long) |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Hi listers...
Since I rambled on about alternative insurance last night I think I'll post some
ideas and see what feedback we get.
First off since 9/11 insurance companys that hardly EVER paid out claims were hit
with many policy limit settlements, these companys had insured the Trade Center
for a portion or layer of protection. It sent some out of business. Those
that remained took a real hard look at what they were insuring as some of you
have found out, new business was not their priority unless of course you pony
up their asking price and sometimes not even that would get you covered. If we
could start a retention group or "captive" program then all the participants
become the insurance company and manage it just like an insurance company. They
would approve new applicants or members but the underwriter would be a person
that has knowledge of experimental aircraft and a pool of knowledge to make
a sound descision whether that applicant would be a good risk for everyone. The
down side to these programs is in order to work each person or member has to
commit to signing a joint and several liability agreement.
This basically puts them on notice that they can be assessed for additional money
should the surplus be deleted below the amount that has been established which
determines the abiltiy of the group to pay it's claims. The group would be
responsible for the first and I'm guessing here because I don't have any actuarial
data $50,000 for each claim. After that the excess insurance would pick
up the additional amount. We may not be interested in taking on the liability
coverage and only offer hull coverage. As the builder I would be glad to get my
kit/engine/avionics money back if I was around to rebuild it, some may not.
Liabilty coverage is cheap enough that we may only want to insure our aircraft
initally until the members surplus is stronger.
Pros-
Owned by the members and managed by the same.
Less premium after intial startup
Dividends returned to the memebers annually based on a ratio of claims filed by
that member and premium paid to the group.
Cons-
Starting capital, my groups have almost always required a members surplus of minimum
$1,000,000 to start
But if you take 3000 interested builders/flyers (I'm targeting RV's) and multiply
that by $5000....it adds up.
Excess coverage...might not be able to get it bound. This is the key to the whole
thing working and my closing of this for now. If via word of mouth ask your
fellow builders, if there would be an interest, it would not see any return for
at least three years but as long as the losses were managed and kept to an
acceptable level surplus would grow, dividends would be returned back to the members.
I can only get a serious response if I have some numbers to approach the
reinsurers with to show there is indeed enough interest in getting this to
work. And for all you anti-capitalist people out there, it's a not for profit
business operated for the sole purpose of self insurance. Any fees paid would
be managment fees, which are usually a percentage of premium, claims managment
costs, reinsurance premuim, standard small business insurance coverages for the
board of directors, most of these equate to 35 to 40 percent of the premium
recieved. Ideally the group would want to maintain a low loss ratio of 5 to 10
percent, Something to think about, how many RV-s were damaged destroyed last
year? I will need to do a loss analysis of lost aircraft by year to see if this
is an achievable ratio, main goal is to not deplete the initial investment
surplus.
Whew....and to think I build my airplane to get away from this stuff. Another route
would be approaching the EAA to poll the membership but I think they are
in pretty tight with a few insurance companys who might just take the idea and
run with it themselves. Who would you rather decide if your a good risk? Another
builder who know his stuff or a guy in a cubicle who turns down a pusher because
the twirly thing is on the wrong end of the vehicle (don't laugh, not far
from the truth). In the insurance market the companys are looking for the insureds
to assume more risk, this is just one way to start doing just that but
with the option of getting some of your investment back.
Rick
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: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Time for me to chime in I guess (been out of town). There are several companies
touting the greatness of their new engines and all the wonderful advantages
that they'll have. We have everything from turbines to to diesels to auto conversions
to Lycoming clones. Each has their supporters for various reasons, but
when it comes down to getting more than a small following, it's going to take
proof of claims with independent verification. That independent verification
can be somebody running on a dyno to confirm, or simply putting it in an airplane
and demonstrate the HP and fuel burn. It would also be mandatory to have
a firewall forward package to sell very many and I doubt that you'd be able
to sustain a business selling these engines exclusively to RV-10 owners. The
package would have to be cost competitive with a Lycoming FWF package, otherwise
you're again reducing the number of people that you'll be selling to. Finally,
you'll have to deal with insurance (like it or not). Some of us are fortunate
enough to be able to pay for our planes without financing, most probably
are not. With that said, those folks will be required to obtain hull insurance
to enable that financing. Although I've not been tracking it closely, it
appears that even packages that are "relatively" mature and complete like the
Egg Subaru conversion for the 2 place RVs have insurance challenges.
Bob #40105
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=FijmcuyB71lTmUTpVmA/MUs8XeVOyMVrSArskM75F23f5m8Zk3Hp/WFDSN3Pi+X1PounYXZOVYzkpGxj0/O2J4sxZGrgFne6xhNBsLYCrIUYGyRgFrtHgAaZw0ge6HrLl6GfW2Thuaf/jf1vs2cWjoAu7Iu13B11ve2Uz0gKCgo=
;
| Subject: | Re: Switching to a 7A |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
John,
Latest development is that I did in fact switch to a 9A. Although I also flew
a 7A for the first time yesterday and I have to say it wasn't all that twitchy!
Yes, that's right, I switched my order with Van's twice in one week.
(Surprisingly, they weren't annoyed). Funny thing is the 9 is the first
kitplane I ever wanted and seeing the first one at OSH a number of years ago
was part of what got me into flying. (Awestruck at the sight of it, I think I
turned to my girlfriend and exclaimed something on the order of "Shiny, pretty
plane! Me want fly!!".)
There are guys, some in my EAA chapter, that do fly 6s & 7s regularly in IFR
and honestly I have to say after flying a 7 that it just didn't require that
much attention. It goes where you point it and pitch stability is good! But,
I'll gladly give up 10mph or so in cruise and aerobatics, which I'll most
likely never take advantage of (and, hey, you can roll anything) for an even
more stable platform. I will be the first to admit that even a 152 can be a
handful in the clouds!! And my actual IMC experience at this point is slim!!
You're absolutely right about having a helper.. even a sharp non-pilot. Huge
difference.
Anyway, the 9 is certainly the baby brother of the 10. They are essentially
identical in mission.
~Paul
Time: 08:44:01 AM PST US
From: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
<10728838.1115265568024.JavaMail.root@statler.psp.pas.earthlink.net>
<000a01c55168$59f5b250$6501a8c0@MainOffice>
<001401c55177$3b297d20$6501a8c0@MainOffice>
"K" is also the type code for heavy wall copper pipe. 8*) KABONG Do Not Archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Edgerton
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Actually Rick K is a computer term which represent 1024bytes so K is 24 to
high for my notation :>}
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Edgerton
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Got me that time :>} You are correct of coarse.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
Wayne,
Please tell me you meant 150 "K" not "m"....I would be going after a Gulfstream
for that kinda money. :D
Rick S.
40185
Features Subscriptions
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 |
|
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
Rick, give consideration to the initial setup similar to what Lancair is
doing. 16 hours of initial High Performance Ground School (tailored
specifically to the RV-10) and five hours of initial "In the Air" dual
instruction with an Instructor approved by the Insurance Pool. This
would not qualify for the run of the mill CFI going with you for a $100
hamburger. This would not be a canned Safety Seminar Ground School at a
cheap motel. This would be the hard nuts, review of all RV-10 incident
review, unusual attitudes, maintenance of the Powerplant and
airworthiness inspection procedures. Bring out a VANS rep, book
nationally recognized individuals such as Pete Z or Jeff Edwards and a
veteran RV builder.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Hey.....bottom line? Risk retention...Scott has chosen to accept the
cost of his aircraft as his retention...or in laymens terms, he has a...
lets, say $100,000 deductible. I'm not joking here, get ready
folks...this is the wave of the future in the insurance biz... How about
we all set up a risk retention group, we put our premium into an account
instead of the insurance company's pocket, broker out excess coverage
for losses over $150,000, manage our "contributions" Pay dividends back
to the members of the group who have participated for say three years
with no losses and the group manages it's own destiny to include claims.
Only have to set up a thrid party administrator to handle reciept of the
contributions and manage the finacial end for say 15% to include claims
managment. Might take a $5000+ dollar investment up front depending on
how many people were interested.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
to
and
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-10 MT Propeller group buy |
Hi All,
Enough RV-10 builders seem to be ready now to buy their RV-10 MT Propeller.
Also, some of the RV-10 builders will need to order it now, so it arrives in
time.
My group buy price is $7,100 plus shipping from Germany;
Or $7,400 delivered to the closest certified MT Propeller assembly facility.
(Other shipping arrangements can be made.)
The standard list price is $9,380 plus shipping from Germany.
Van's Aircraft now offers this propeller for $8,060 delivered to the closest
certified MT Propeller assembly facility.
There is a two year materials and workmanship warrantee with this propeller
with a 12 month period for installation before the warrantee period starts.
There is about a 10 to 12 week lead time for delivery.
Again, I am asking for the names of people interested in purchasing the
RV-10 MT Propeller, MTV-12-B/193-53, at this time.
Please respond directly to _CustomACProp@aol.com_
(mailto:CustomACProp@aol.com)
(This is a new division of Less Drag Products, Inc.)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 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 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | empennage extras... |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy@abros.com>
That's no fun!! You got to use tools man. Cutting and drilling is what it's all
about. Thanks for supplying a easier way. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scott Lewis
Subject: Re: RV10-List: empennage extras...
--> RV10-List message posted by: Scott Lewis <rv10@tpg.com.au>
G'day,
I did the same, however the bit with the black goop in it unscrews from
the main cartridge (at least it did on mine, from Vans). I didn't need
to cut or drill anything. Use the black stick to push the plunger in
each part.
Seeya,
Scott Lewis
RV-10 40172 VH-DRS
Adelaide, South Australia
Randy DeBauw wrote:
> Do you want a hot tip James. Take the 3.5 oz container and look at it
> close. The product is separated when you get it and if you keep it
> separated you can use it in small amounts as you need it. I took the
> small rod end and cut it off. Then I drilled a 1/4" hole in the large
> tube end and made pushed out as much as I needed. You then can push out
> the black part to get a 10 to 1 mix. I used this method for all of the
> trailing edges and then some with just 1 3.5 oz tube. Randy
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Insurance group - Was: New Engine Technology |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I agree with you assessment entirely. In my opinion, I currently have
no plans to insure the hull, only liability. I think that everyone
needs to have that component through a major carrier. But, if we
did have an RV-10 pool for hull coverage, and it was a much smaller
fee than $250/mo, I'd probably be interested in insuring the hull.
For a group of 300 RV-10's, figure a HULL value (not covering
electronics) of $100,000 per airplane, and assuming that 2% of that
pool will crash their plane and total the airframe/engine,
that would be a total replacement for 6 airplanes at $600,000.
Those 6 airplanes, split 300 ways, would mean that if someone
paid into the pool a cost of $2000, that should take care of
paying for those first 6 RV-10 crashes that total the airframe
and engine.....or that guy who has his all built, but his hanger
caves in when the hurricane hits. The group pays out for the
airframe and engine only, under specific case causes. Avionics
aren't covered because A) Those costs are extremely variable from
airframe to airframe. B) Unless it's a big fire, much of the
avionics would be salvageable by the builder.
$2000 to enter into the pool, and a small annual maintenance
fee to grow or maintain the funding for 6 airframes (maybe $200-400??)
That would be pretty attractive. Cover your own avionics, pay
for your own liability. Now your "insurance" costs each
year are very reasonable compared to the market....and you
have the incentive NOT to total your plane, because if you do,
you risk your avionics that you worked so hard for.
Attractive, I think. Possible....I don't know....what's the
likelyhood of getting 300 real RV-10 owners to pool up??? Most
all of them should be interested, if the plane is also covered
during the building process, right?
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
do not archive
Jesse Saint wrote:
> I guess I will add my $.02 on the insurance thing. We worked on getting
> hull insurance on a PA-14 that we fixed up for filming a movie. We had
> $100,000 in the plane and the insurance company would only give us up to
> $30,000 in hull coverage. That way, if anything happens, we they
> prorate the damage based on their value of the airplane and either fix
> it or pay us our $30,000 and take the plane. It was a no-brainer to
> self-insure on that one.
>
>
>
> Liability insurance is usually a good idea in my opinion. Anybody who
> owns an aircraft has to have a lot of money, right, so if I get hurt I
> am going to sue their socks off. The chances of hurting somebody
> outside of the airplane in an accident is much lower than in a car, so
> the insurance companies can give decent rates on liability. Theyre
> really not taking very much risk because risk equals losing money to
> them. They sign up a ton of people to pay more than they should pay and
> then get a big policy from somebody else to cover them if they get too
> many claims.
>
>
>
> On hull coverage, it can start getting out of hand. How many things can
> happen to an airplane to cause damage? A rough landing, a break locks
> up on landing and you hit a runway light with your prop (I experienced
> that a couple of weeks ago, not as the pilot), hangar rash, lightning
> strike, short in wiring causing a fire, etc. Most of these do not have
> the potential of causing the insurance company as to pay as much as in a
> liability lawsuit, but there is a much better chance in them happening.
> They make sure you pay more than the chances of you having a problem
> times the cost of fixing the problem. Either way, you are in Las Vegas
> dropping your money somewhere, right? Either you are betting on needing
> the insurance to pay more than you are paying in insurance, or you are
> betting the opposite.
>
>
>
> I have spent a lot of time in South America. People drive crazy down
> there. Much crazier than here, I would say, but I have only ever seen
> two accidents in all my time there (I didnt see them happen, just saw
> the people standing around a wrecked car). I have seen that hundreds of
> times here. I have come to the conclusion that one of the biggest
> reasons that people drive what seems to be more carelessly in South
> America, but have fewer accidents, is that they are actually being more
> careful. They only do things that they KNOW they can get by with. If
> somebody is in their lane going the other way, they dont care about
> right-of-way, they get out of the way. They dont have insurance. If
> their car gets wrecked, they are out of a car. For them, buying a car
> is more of an investment then us buying an airplane. They cant afford
> to lose it, but nobody will insure it. They take much better care
> because they have everything to lose. Here, everybody (including me)
> knows that if something happens, their insurance company will take care
> of it, especially if it is a serious wreck. We drive with our knee
> while eating a hamburger and talking on the cell phone, all on the
> interstate at 80mph. If somebody is in our lane, they shouldnt be
> there, we have the right-of-way, so were going to ride up on their
> bumper a little bit to let them know that we saw them cut us off.
> Again, if something happens, theres the insurance company.
>
>
>
> All this to say, that we will probably not get hull coverage unless it
> is very cheap, which $250/month is not. After all, we built the
> airplane the first time and can probably fix it if there is a problem a
> lot cheaper than taking it to an A&P, which the insurance company would
> require, especially if they are going to continue insuring us, which is
> doubtful. We are now too much of a risk to them. Take the risk out of
> the pool and drop $250/month in income = good business decision.
>
>
>
> On your comment about car insurance and homeowners insurance, I do admit
> that I have both. I pay a total of $95/month for 3 cars (only one with
> comp and collision because it is not mine) and another $35/month for
> homeowners. The car insurance is required by law and I carry the
> minimums. If I wreck it, they can have it. They cant take my house
> and probably cant take any of my kids, so the lawyers can have my car
> and do what they will with it.
>
>
>
> I realize that I am running a risk, but the risk of losing my insurance
> money is very high and the risk of losing the money I invested in my
> airplane is very low. I will put my money where there is low risk of
> losing itright back in my pocket.
>
>
>
> Jesse Saint
>
> I-TEC, Inc.
>
> jesse@itecusa.org <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
>
> www.itecusa.org <http://www.itecusa.org>
>
> W: 352-465-4545
>
> C: 352-427-0285
>
> F: 815-377-3694
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Wayne Edgerton
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:13 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: 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 <mailto:lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto: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 dont 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 wont 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 Vans 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. Todays
> 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
> dont 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 <mailto:sschmidt@ussynthetic.com>
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> [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 <mailto: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 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Switching to a 7A |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Paul,
That explains why she is your girlfriend......having trouble deciding whether to
marry her or not?
;)
As always just poking fun, Now are you sure this time???? I think I saw a blurb
in the RVator about people placing orders and still didn't know what airplane
they wanted to order and changing their minds several time over the course of
two weeks. Sorta like a kid in the candy shop staring at the display case and
trying to decide which piece he REALLY wants!!
Rick
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: Alternative Risk Insurance (long) |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jim Combs" <jimc@mail.infra-read.com>
Rick,
I for one would add my name your list.
I have been thinking along these lines for quite a while.
Thanks,
Jim Combs
#40192
Do Not Archive
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Hi listers...
Since I rambled on about alternative insurance last night I think I'll post some
ideas and see what feedback we get.
First off since 9/11 insurance companys that hardly EVER paid out claims were hit
with many policy limit settlements, these companys had insured the Trade Center
for a portion or layer of protection. It sent some out of business. Those
that remained took a real hard look at what they were insuring as some of you
have found out, new business was not their priority unless of course you pony
up their asking price and sometimes not even that would get you covered. If we
could start a retention group or "captive" program then all the participants
become the insurance company and manage it just like an insurance company. They
would approve new applicants or members but the underwriter would be a person
that has knowledge of experimental aircraft and a pool of knowledge to make
a sound descision whether that applicant would be a good risk for everyone. The
down side to these programs is in order to work each person or member has to
commit to signing a joint and several liability ag!
reement.
This basically puts them on notice that they can be assessed for additional money
should the surplus be deleted below the amount that has been established which
determines the abiltiy of the group to pay it's claims. The group would be
responsible for the first and I'm guessing here because I don't have any actuarial
data $50,000 for each claim. After that the excess insurance would pick
up the additional amount. We may not be interested in taking on the liability
coverage and only offer hull coverage. As the builder I would be glad to get my
kit/engine/avionics money back if I was around to rebuild it, some may not.
Liabilty coverage is cheap enough that we may only want to insure our aircraft
initally until the members surplus is stronger.
Pros-
Owned by the members and managed by the same.
Less premium after intial startup
Dividends returned to the memebers annually based on a ratio of claims filed by
that member and premium paid to the group.
Cons-
Starting capital, my groups have almost always required a members surplus of minimum
$1,000,000 to start
But if you take 3000 interested builders/flyers (I'm targeting RV's) and multiply
that by $5000....it adds up.
Excess coverage...might not be able to get it bound. This is the key to the whole
thing working and my closing of this for now. If via word of mouth ask your
fellow builders, if there would be an interest, it would not see any return for
at least three years but as long as the losses were managed and kept to an
acceptable level surplus would grow, dividends would be returned back to the members.
I can only get a serious response if I have some numbers to approach the
reinsurers with to show there is indeed enough interest in getting this to
work. And for all you anti-capitalist people out there, it's a not for profit
business operated for the sole purpose of self insurance. Any fees paid would
be managment fees, which are usually a percentage of premium, claims managment
costs, reinsurance premuim, standard small business insurance coverages for the
board of directors, most of these equate to 35 to 40 percent of the premium
recieved. Ideally the group would want to maintain !
a low loss ratio of 5 to 10 percent, Something to think about, how many RV-s were
damaged destroyed last year? I will need to do a loss analysis of lost aircraft
by year to see if this is an achievable ratio, main goal is to not deplete
the initial investment surplus.
Whew....and to think I build my airplane to get away from this stuff. Another route
would be approaching the EAA to poll the membership but I think they are
in pretty tight with a few insurance companys who might just take the idea and
run with it themselves. Who would you rather decide if your a good risk? Another
builder who know his stuff or a guy in a cubicle who turns down a pusher because
the twirly thing is on the wrong end of the vehicle (don't laugh, not far
from the truth). In the insurance market the companys are looking for the insureds
to assume more risk, this is just one way to start doing just that but
with the option of getting some of your investment back.
Rick
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
it all sounds good until the very first claim (especially if there is death or
substantial $$$ involved)
then the concept will fall apart
insurance company and agents do know what they are doing and do provide a service
(albeit for a fee)
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
Hey.....bottom line? Risk retention...Scott has chosen to accept the cost of
his aircraft as his retention...or in laymens terms, he has a... lets, say $100,000
deductible. I'm not joking here, get ready folks...this is the wave of the
future in the insurance biz... How about we all set up a risk retention group,
we put our premium into an account instead of the insurance company's pocket,
broker out excess coverage for losses over $150,000, manage our "contributions"
Pay dividends back to the members of the group who have participated for
say three years with no losses and the group manages it's own destiny to include
claims. Only have to set up a thrid party administrator to handle reciept
of the contributions and manage the finacial end for say 15% to include claims
managment. Might take a $5000+ dollar investment up front depending on how many
people were interested.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
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: RV-10 Insurance group - Was: New Engine Technology |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
I would set it up as a percentage of stated value. I think full replacment cost
on the airframe and actual cash value on the avionics if they were to be covered.
Same on the engne, if your 20 hours from TBO your engine is worth considerably
less then one with 1400 TBO. To keep costs down you would exclude petty
items that were previously mentioned like hanger rash. If you screwed up changing
a tire and bent your gear leg, maybe you shouldn't be filing a claim, but
on the other hand your hanger burns...(well you better not have set the fire)
but otherwise there would be coverage. The policy would have to be written and
that's far away, after checking it looks like it would have to be an offshore
captive just to avoid getting every state to buy off on the group as an insurer.
I'm tabeling this until I see how much interest there is out there...then
act on it if there is. Going to figure out how to netwrok it first. Suggestions
welcome.
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: | empennage extras... |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
lol.....I was going to tell you that it unscrewed but you seemed so proud of surgically
seperating the components I didn't have the heart!!!
Rick S.
40185
Wings
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? |
However, in the Metric System, Kkilo1000
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Edgerton
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Actually Rick K is a computer term which represent 1024bytes so K is 24 to
high for my notation :>}
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Edgerton
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Got me that time :>} You are correct of coarse.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
Wayne,
Please tell me you meant 150 "K" not "m"....I would be going after a Gulfstream
for that kinda money. :D
Rick S.
40185
Features Subscriptions
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 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 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: 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 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 |
|
I just saw in the new SportPilot issue that they are expecting to have the
first user-built RV-10's at Oshkosh this year. I know Randy is almost
flying. We hope to have our flying to Oshkosh as well, but how many others
are expected to be flying by then?
It's starting to happen.
Jesse Saint
#40241 Slowbuild on Finishing Kit
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 MT Propeller group buy |
does it come completely assembled ? or do we have to pay more $$ for assembly
----- Original Message -----
From: LessDragProd@aol.com
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 8:21 AM
Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 MT Propeller group buy
Hi All,
Enough RV-10 builders seem to be ready now to buy their RV-10 MT Propeller.
Also, some of the RV-10 builders will need to order it now, so it arrives in time.
My group buy price is $7,100 plus shipping from Germany;
Or $7,400 delivered to the closest certified MT Propeller assembly facility.
(Other shipping arrangements can be made.)
The standard list price is $9,380 plus shipping from Germany.
Van's Aircraft now offers this propeller for $8,060 delivered to the closest
certified MT Propeller assembly facility.
There is a two year materials and workmanship warrantee with this propeller with
a 12 month period for installation before the warrantee period starts.
There is about a 10 to 12 week lead time for delivery.
Again, I am asking for the names of people interested in purchasing the RV-10
MT Propeller, MTV-12-B/193-53, at this time.
Please respond directly to CustomACProp@aol.com
(This is a new division of Less Drag Products, Inc.)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
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 |
|
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 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: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Just for the record, I never said I wouldn't do hull coverage. That was
someone else typing into my initial e-mail. I am going to insure the
snot out of this plane and I completely agree with you. I can be the
best pilot in the world but there are 100,000,000,000,000 Billion (I
don't know how many that is) other things that can go wrong. I will
have $140,000 in this plane and my quote was very close to yours.
Do Not Achieve
Scott Schmidt
Cell 801-319-3094
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 <mailto:lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
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:
=09
=09
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.
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
=09
=09
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
=09
________________________________
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
=09
=09
________________________________
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
=09
=09
=09
________________________________
5/2/05
=09
=09
=09
=09
________________________________
5/4/05
=09
________________________________
5/4/05
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 |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=p0eDXQPWvZNcu6IXK7aHMzNWaJSEavYsNeo3Qf+VRdbwL+ajXte3CrKTnAkRUWCMHaefMNqYW4E7zJLZfmnSGoFv+qDuNtDFYpDUgZK15faYSK8O5osK3HYgkhRF7hXpV934zNx0s0DoAF3GDgVXZg1Yg/SebT6DU5ft1+vB1Ec=
;
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Risk Insurance (long) |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Darton Steve <sfdarton@yahoo.com>
What about having a high deductible, that way we would
be "self insured" to an extent and keep the group's
liability down. I would consider a deductible of
$20,000 not unreasonable.
Steve 40212 building wings
--- Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net> wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
> <ricksked@earthlink.net>
>
> Hi listers...
>
> Since I rambled on about alternative insurance last
> night I think I'll post some ideas and see what
> feedback we get.
>
> First off since 9/11 insurance companys that hardly
> EVER paid out claims were hit with many policy limit
> settlements, these companys had insured the Trade
> Center for a portion or layer of protection. It sent
> some out of business. Those that remained took a
> real hard look at what they were insuring as some of
> you have found out, new business was not their
> priority unless of course you pony up their asking
> price and sometimes not even that would get you
> covered. If we could start a retention group or
> "captive" program then all the participants become
> the insurance company and manage it just like an
> insurance company. They would approve new applicants
> or members but the underwriter would be a person
> that has knowledge of experimental aircraft and a
> pool of knowledge to make a sound descision whether
> that applicant would be a good risk for everyone.
> The down side to these programs is in order to work
> each person or member has to commit to signing a
> joint and several liability ag!
> reement.
>
> This basically puts them on notice that they can be
> assessed for additional money should the surplus be
> deleted below the amount that has been established
> which determines the abiltiy of the group to pay
> it's claims. The group would be responsible for the
> first and I'm guessing here because I don't have any
> actuarial data $50,000 for each claim. After that
> the excess insurance would pick up the additional
> amount. We may not be interested in taking on the
> liability coverage and only offer hull coverage. As
> the builder I would be glad to get my
> kit/engine/avionics money back if I was around to
> rebuild it, some may not. Liabilty coverage is cheap
> enough that we may only want to insure our aircraft
> initally until the members surplus is stronger.
>
> Pros-
> Owned by the members and managed by the same.
> Less premium after intial startup
> Dividends returned to the memebers annually based on
> a ratio of claims filed by that member and premium
> paid to the group.
>
> Cons-
> Starting capital, my groups have almost always
> required a members surplus of minimum $1,000,000 to
> start
> But if you take 3000 interested builders/flyers (I'm
> targeting RV's) and multiply that by $5000....it
> adds up.
> Excess coverage...might not be able to get it bound.
> This is the key to the whole thing working and my
> closing of this for now. If via word of mouth ask
> your fellow builders, if there would be an interest,
> it would not see any return for at least three years
> but as long as the losses were managed and kept to
> an acceptable level surplus would grow, dividends
> would be returned back to the members. I can only
> get a serious response if I have some numbers to
> approach the reinsurers with to show there is indeed
> enough interest in getting this to work. And for all
> you anti-capitalist people out there, it's a not for
> profit business operated for the sole purpose of
> self insurance. Any fees paid would be managment
> fees, which are usually a percentage of premium,
> claims managment costs, reinsurance premuim,
> standard small business insurance coverages for the
> board of directors, most of these equate to 35 to 40
> percent of the premium recieved. Ideally the group
> would want to maintain !
> a low loss ratio of 5 to 10 percent, Something to
> think about, how many RV-s were damaged destroyed
> last year? I will need to do a loss analysis of lost
> aircraft by year to see if this is an achievable
> ratio, main goal is to not deplete the initial
> investment surplus.
>
> Whew....and to think I build my airplane to get away
> from this stuff. Another route would be approaching
> the EAA to poll the membership but I think they are
> in pretty tight with a few insurance companys who
> might just take the idea and run with it themselves.
> Who would you rather decide if your a good risk?
> Another builder who know his stuff or a guy in a
> cubicle who turns down a pusher because the twirly
> thing is on the wrong end of the vehicle (don't
> laugh, not far from the truth). In the insurance
> market the companys are looking for the insureds to
> assume more risk, this is just one way to start
> doing just that but with the option of getting some
> of your investment back.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
This idea is very interesting , 300 people sign up x $5000 1.5 mil.
hhhmm
Brian B
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
Hey.....bottom line? Risk retention...Scott has chosen to accept the cost of
his aircraft as his retention...or in laymens terms, he has a... lets, say $100,000
deductible. I'm not joking here, get ready folks...this is the wave of the
future in the insurance biz... How about we all set up a risk retention group,
we put our premium into an account instead of the insurance company's pocket,
broker out excess coverage for losses over $150,000, manage our "contributions"
Pay dividends back to the members of the group who have participated for
say three years with no losses and the group manages it's own destiny to include
claims. Only have to set up a thrid party administrator to handle reciept
of the contributions and manage the finacial end for say 15% to include claims
managment. Might take a $5000+ dollar investment up front depending on how many
people were interested.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 MT Propeller group buy |
Van's $8,060 price is for delivery disassembled to your closest assembly
facility. The $7,400 group buy price is for the same delivery. A $660 savings
from Van's price.
By comparison, my normal price with delivery to the closest certified MT
Propeller assembly facility is only a $30 savings off of Van's price.
An MT Propeller can be delivered assembled to the closest international
airport directly from Germany.
The RV-10 MT Propeller group buy price would be about $8,100 for delivery in
this manner. The specific cost to an international airports varies by plus
or minus $150.
For assembly in Southern California, I charge $300. I believe I am the
least expensive of the certified MT Propeller assembly facilities in the USA.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 05/05/2005 10:21:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
son@hoangs.com writes:
does it come completely assembled ? or do we have to pay more $$ for
assembly
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Anyone close to flying with MT Prop? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Napoli, Nikolaos (Contr)" <nikolaos.napoli@ngc.com>
Is anyone close to flying installing the MT prop? It would be nice to at least
get some impressions from a builder.
Niko
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: James Ochs <jochs@froody.org>
Hi all,
Just HAD to tell someone that actually UNDERSTANDS what I'm going through ;)
Just got the delivery appointment set up for my emp. kit -- tomorrow
between 12 - 3! Looks like I'll be busy this weekend!!!!!! (heh,
usually this kind of stuff invariably shows up on monday :P)
For those of you who are interested in shipping info, Vans shipped it
yesterday via fedex freight to my house in Sunnyvale, CA and the
shipping cost is $151.80. The local freight terminal is San Jose, CA,
but I don't think I can get the crates in the back of my A4 ;) They will
be delivering w/ a lift gate and pallet jack.
I put up a web site at http://www.froody.org/html for my project (Tim
already put a link on his page to it -- Thanks Tim!). Not particularly
interesting at the moment, but I will be posting my build log there.
Well, so much for being focused at work today ;)
Do not archive
James
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| 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 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
I would be interested in this for a stated hull value.
Dan
40269
Do not Archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
I think we are just checking out hull coverage right now, liability
would be through standard carriers. The group would be resonsible up to
a set value then excess coverage would indemnify the balance. That's the
hook, getting that coverage in place. I do this type of risk managment
for Berkley Risk www.berkleyrisk.com It can be done, just takes enough
interest and capital. I was feeling out the population to see if there
was any interest in getting involved in this type of program. And no I'm
not marketing it for this company, just thought it would be a way for
everyone to get better rates, a peice of ownership in their investment
of premium.
to
and
Message 39
| 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? |
I went with a rebuilt one from Aerosport. In fact I just received it
today about 2 hours ago here at my work and loaded it into the back of
my friends Dakota. Can't wait to get home and work on it.
Feel free to call me anytime but Bart at Aerosport Power is a great guy
to talk to.
My engine has the following features:
- IO-540
- Standard compression
- One Lightspeed III and one mag
- Bendix Injection
- I did go with a new piston set that is apparently better for
corrosion but can't remember which.
Everything else is fairly stock. I'm just looking for a super-reliable
engine.
Scott Schmidt
Cell: 801-319-3094
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 <mailto:sschmidt@ussynthetic.com>
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
=09
________________________________
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
=09
________________________________
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:
=09
=09
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.
=09
=09
This engine would operate in an RPM range from ~300 to 3000rpm.
That's about as perfect a range as you can get.
=09
=09
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.
=09
=09
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.
=09
=09
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.
=09
=09
What would you have to see in place.
That airplane flying.
=09
=09
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.
=09
=09
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.
=09
=09
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
=09
=09
Dave Hertner
=09
=09
=09
________________________________
5/2/05
Message 40
| 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=C1ALlRZCN2q2jAyLHTxAihHgW0amVywfmLhtKCCaDW66j/7NiLA6IT8DhMQcTSTyQN2SBkjlbUqtzj598SIDUUMbfNrdFeXjy4qmXfeobJY+Z2s9H1OTw3sSPXlFBE+Ia9z0+Ao8ZcvcSrLzOSb6vgKVdPRIKKXyoB3wED01XZ8=
;
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Risk Insurance (long) |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Robert <retiredpilot03-serv@yahoo.com>
Rick,
You can also add me to the list, if there is one
yet.
Robert Vinroot
#40343
--- Jim Combs <jimc@mail.infra-read.com> wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Jim Combs"
> <jimc@mail.infra-read.com>
>
> Rick,
>
> I for one would add my name your list.
>
> I have been thinking along these lines for
> quite a while.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim Combs
> #40192
>
> Do Not Archive
> ---------- Original Message
> ----------------------------------
> From: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
> Reply-To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 07:15:58 -0700
> (GMT-07:00)
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
> <ricksked@earthlink.net>
>
> Hi listers...
>
> Since I rambled on about alternative insurance
> last night I think I'll post some ideas and see
> what feedback we get.
>
> First off since 9/11 insurance companys that
> hardly EVER paid out claims were hit with many
> policy limit settlements, these companys had
> insured the Trade Center for a portion or layer
> of protection. It sent some out of business.
> Those that remained took a real hard look at
> what they were insuring as some of you have
> found out, new business was not their priority
> unless of course you pony up their asking price
> and sometimes not even that would get you
> covered. If we could start a retention group or
> "captive" program then all the participants
> become the insurance company and manage it just
> like an insurance company. They would approve
> new applicants or members but the underwriter
> would be a person that has knowledge of
> experimental aircraft and a pool of knowledge
> to make a sound descision whether that
> applicant would be a good risk for everyone.
> The down side to these programs is in order to
> work each person or member has to commit to
> signing a joint and several liability ag!
> reement.
>
> This basically puts them on notice that they
> can be assessed for additional money should the
> surplus be deleted below the amount that has
> been established which determines the abiltiy
> of the group to pay it's claims. The group
> would be responsible for the first and I'm
> guessing here because I don't have any
> actuarial data $50,000 for each claim. After
> that the excess insurance would pick up the
> additional amount. We may not be interested in
> taking on the liability coverage and only offer
> hull coverage. As the builder I would be glad
> to get my kit/engine/avionics money back if I
> was around to rebuild it, some may not.
> Liabilty coverage is cheap enough that we may
> only want to insure our aircraft initally until
> the members surplus is stronger.
>
> Pros-
> Owned by the members and managed by the same.
> Less premium after intial startup
> Dividends returned to the memebers annually
> based on a ratio of claims filed by that member
> and premium paid to the group.
>
> Cons-
> Starting capital, my groups have almost always
> required a members surplus of minimum
> $1,000,000 to start
> But if you take 3000 interested builders/flyers
> (I'm targeting RV's) and multiply that by
> $5000....it adds up.
> Excess coverage...might not be able to get it
> bound. This is the key to the whole thing
> working and my closing of this for now. If via
> word of mouth ask your fellow builders, if
> there would be an interest, it would not see
> any return for at least three years but as long
> as the losses were managed and kept to an
> acceptable level surplus would grow, dividends
> would be returned back to the members. I can
> only get a serious response if I have some
> numbers to approach the reinsurers with to show
> there is indeed enough interest in getting this
> to work. And for all you anti-capitalist people
> out there, it's a not for profit business
> operated for the sole purpose of self
> insurance. Any fees paid would be managment
> fees, which are usually a percentage of
> premium, claims managment costs, reinsurance
> premuim, standard small business insurance
> coverages for the board of directors, most of
> these equate to 35 to 40 percent of the premium
> recieved. Ideally the group would want to
> maintain !
> a low loss ratio of 5 to 10 percent, Something
> to think about, how many RV-s were damaged
> destroyed last year? I will need to do a loss
> analysis of lost aircraft by year to see if
> this is an achievable ratio, main goal is to
> not deplete the initial investment surplus.
>
> Whew....and to think I build my airplane to get
> away from this stuff. Another route would be
> approaching the EAA to poll the membership but
> I think they are in pretty tight with a few
> insurance companys who might just take the idea
> and run with it themselves. Who would you
> rather decide if your a good risk? Another
> builder who know his stuff or a guy in a
> cubicle who turns down a pusher because the
> twirly thing is on the wrong end of the vehicle
> (don't laugh, not far from the truth). In the
> insurance market the companys are looking for
> the insureds to assume more risk, this is just
> one way to start doing just that but with the
> option of getting some of your investment back.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> to browse
> Subscriptions page,
> Chat, FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-10 Insurance group - Was: New Engine Technology |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
I would be interested in this type of a deal.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Insurance group - Was: New Engine Technology
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
I would set it up as a percentage of stated value. I think full replacment
cost on the airframe and actual cash value on the avionics if they were to
be covered. Same on the engne, if your 20 hours from TBO your engine is
worth considerably less then one with 1400 TBO. To keep costs down you would
exclude petty items that were previously mentioned like hanger rash. If you
screwed up changing a tire and bent your gear leg, maybe you shouldn't be
filing a claim, but on the other hand your hanger burns...(well you better
not have set the fire) but otherwise there would be coverage. The policy
would have to be written and that's far away, after checking it looks like
it would have to be an offshore captive just to avoid getting every state to
buy off on the group as an insurer. I'm tabeling this until I see how much
interest there is out there...then act on it if there is. Going to figure
out how to netwrok it first. Suggestions welcome.
Message 42
| 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
We did slow build all the way. We ordered about Oshkosh time last year. We
had a crew of two guys working on it last Sept - Dec, took some time off,
and then have had two guys (one the same, the other is me) working since the
first of Feb. We have had other help along the way. Long days,
concentrated work, for the most part. I think we have about 1800 hours in
it so far, although we let the logging fall by the wayside a little while
ago, I am ashamed to say. We should be getting our engine next weekend.
Prop is on the way. Will get it on the gear week after next, hopefully.
We're going to fly it before we paint it (we will UV protect the fiberglass,
though). We should be getting our panel put together in the next month,
with some help. The inside is painted but no upholstery yet.
As for the photos, I have some attached. The real incentive for everybody
to keep working is #661. Just think how fast those old 172's are going to
look like they are flying (backwards, of course) when we fly by.
I would be happy to send any specific photos if somebody wants to see
something specific. We should have the windshield fairing layed up early
next week. Then we are going to sand and feather fill the glass. Then it's
time for the gear and the wings. When they go on, they shouldn't come off
until it flies. We most likely won't have it painted before Oshkosh, but
are really hoping to fly it there.
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 Rick
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Oshkosh
Jesse,
Did you go quick build at all? Any mouth watering incentive photos of your
project? Reason I'm asking is I'm just starting my Flaps and only took three
to four months off for a few hand operations but other than that I have
plugged along pretty steadily.
Do not archive
Rick S.
40185
Wings
Message 43
| 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: | Fuel selector valve |
Hi could someone advise me if we need a diferent fuel selector when using a fuel
injected engine other than Vans standard one....not sure how it all works.
Regards Chris,
----- Original Message -----
From: Mani Ravee
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: My Sun-N-Fun Experience (Long)
Tim, glad that I met you. And all the others....although I did not get to join
you guys for recreation. Was staying with friends and "had to be nice".
I did not get to see all the airshows either. I was more keen on drinkin up all
the info the vendors had to offer.
GRT - Spoke to Todd at great length. Their displays are a bit dull/dim when compared
to the blue mountain and chelton displays. But I can see that support
and funtionality will be absolutely top notch. Todd did admit that their processor
was not as fast as the others. But it has EVERYTHING! And at a price that
is very doable. I dont know if you guys checked out the OP Technologies EFIS
and PFD. Crystal clear hi res and extremely versatile. Big ones too. They are
upstarts, broke away from honeywell. Met their president, an extremely nice and
resourceful chap. Pricey! Blue mountain folks were not so friendly and had an
air about them. Displays, especially the big one was awesome. Dont know if I
will buy from them though. Chelton- what can you say? Absolutely the best if
you got the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. But, Josh there let me on a lil secre...t soon to
be announced to RV10 builders, believe it or not. I guess they are seeing competition/loss
of market share. :) Even the Avidyne EX500 looked very good. Have
brought back tons of brochures from all of them which I have to peruse.
Agreed! the fiberglass panels that Randy was helping with or "modeling" in front
of, :) were indeed the cats meow. I will also be going that route I think.
They had the warmth of two tone finishes and looked extremely professional -
one would never achieve that degree of detail and good finish with fabbing it
at home. Looks better than the inside of a GM car. So you get the idea. I did
not order yet as I am still a ways from being able to play with panels.
Speaking of panels, met this young man around the RV10 who is putting together
a software to be able to design/play with creating a panel. ( I know about the
other "panel ware", but this is new) He gave me a beta ver on a CD. Have not
yet had time to play eith it but will post feedback. Dont remember his name,
but will post when I get home tonight.
Did some digging in the alternative engines area. Wish I could call them the
mainstream engines. Met Jan Egg and Chuck Nearhoof. Very nice guys, both of them,
took a lot of time to talk with me. Jan's firewall forward kit is impressive.
Lots of detail and looks very finished and nice. He also informed me that
there will be a 3.0 liter version of the H6 with about 245 - 255 HP supercharged
which may suit the RV10 verywell. Although he hastened to add that it is in
the works at Subaru and has not seen the light of day yet. But, Subaru is not
vaporware like many others. Innodyn, awesome. They had, chuck says, started production
at last. Had 4 actual production models there - not prototypes. The
quality of the constuction and finish looked EXTREMELY nice. When asked about
the weight or the lack thereof, he said they are working on a "twinpack" design
which would add adequate weight. It will be two of their smaller turbines with
a common drive, engineered to run even whe n one turbine is lost. Interesting.
If that takes off, they got my money. Think of a ten with turbine engine?
Not the crazy huge stuff that people are retrofitting. Innodyne would be sweet.
Have to wait on that. Spoke to ECI for their 540 kit. Was told that a complete
540 kit will be ready later this year or early next. They are engineering their
cases and some of the other stuff now. They have their own forging plant
for their cranks and use their proprietary metalurgy and treatments for hardening.
Not Lycoming's.
This is long enough, will write more if others are interested.
You are right Tim, lets make a " Show of Force" in OSH this year. It could well
be the
"Year of the 10"
Mani
Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson
Hi all,
I didn't end up flying the Sundowner down to SNF this year, due
to the higher winds that were on my route, but I did go commercial
and made it there. I'm EXTREMELY glad I did. I was slightly
disappointed as to the size of the event. My guess is that there
are many many more vendors both large and small that show up
at OSH, and much greater attendance by planes flying in.
The layout of the show itself is nicer at OSH too. But, that
said, this show accomplished what I wanted it to.
First of all, I did get to meet maybe 10 or 15 other RV-10 builders.
There were others there that did not meet. I got to have dinner with
Ahn Vu, William Curtis, and Randy DeBauw and associated friends and
family. They're all very nice people.
One highlight of my trip was se eing the Aerocraft RV-10 panels.
Just before the show, when Randy said he'd be hanging out in their
booth, I emailed Randy and told him "Those panels look nice, but I'm
not really a molded fiberglass panel kind of guy." I myself really
like the look of a nice flat metal panel. But, when I walked into
Aerocraft, I was truly amazed. Those panels were beautiful! They
looked nice, felt nice, and truly look professional. They had
I believe 3 or 4 RV-10 panels on display, with at least 2 different
panel variations, and one with the new throttle quadrant in it.
Here are some photos:
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/panel/snfpanels/index.html
The deal at the show was this: Put down a $2500 REFUNDABLE deposit
(30 days refundable) at the show, and the panel itself would be
FREE. (The panel separate was estimated at $1400-1600) Free was
a pretty good price, so I listened on. Then, they'll run through
NUMEROUS revisions with you in picking out you r instruments and layout,
and they'll draw it up in CAD to get your approval and make sure it
all fits. Once you say "GO", your 30 day deposit time starts. They
will sell you all your instruments, laser cut your panel, do the paint
and powdercoat, install/wire/test your avionics, and then ship you
your completed panel. Not only is it wired, but it's extremely
meticulously wired. They showed me how on the heat-shrink wire labels
how they even label the wires to that when you're UNDER the panel
hooking things up, you can read them. If they route a wire on the
top of a bundle at the start of the run, it's still on the top
of the bundle at the end. Everything is straight and clean.
The sad part for me was that electrical stuff is my favorite. I
don't mind banging rivets, I hate deburring and fiberglassing, but
I LOVE wiring. But, when I started to think of the benefits, I
decided this was the right way to go. It saves literally HUNDRED S
of hours in research and wiring components. Not only that, but I
don't have to try to locate and install every last electrical
connector. And I get to spend that time with my kids. By the way,
the Throttle quadrant layout was very awesome. That thing operates
really smoothly.
Next, I got to visit GRT to see their system. I was really impressed.
They have more features than I ever imagined. They can even do
satellite weather now, on their map, for only $1500 as opposed to
the others costing upwards of $5000. The one loss in the whole thing
was that I REALLY liked the display of the ACS2005...I think that's
the nicest, cleanest, EIS that I've ever seen. But, the GRT EIS
only runs an additional $1200 approx for the IO-540, and there was
another benefit. I've now decided on a 3-screen GRT system. An
over/under display on the left side of the panel, and the single
screen on the right. The cool part is that I can now put my
EIS whereve r I want it. If I decide I want a horizon display on the
co-pilot side, a couple of button pushes does it. If I want that
screen to be a moving map with weather, that can be done. It really
gives you some extreme flexibility. In the end, the cost savings
really added up for me, to the point that I could now afford to get
that panel pre-wired and still probably save money. My goal of
the trip was mainly to see GRT, but I ended up making some significant
changes and adding functionality to my panel...at a lower cost.
The other nice show feature for me was being able to see my RV-10
seat at Cleaveland Aircraft Tools. DJ's custom interiors is doing
my seat covers, and their demo cover that was on display looked
really nice. It's not as fancy as the Oregon cover with it's
gusseted (sp?) lumbar pouch, and it wasn't leather, but they'll
do very nicely for me at a good cost savings. I didn't get any
final pricing yet, but they estimated that the rear seats will
cost about the same as an RV-7 seat set, and the front will
probably cost similar, as the stitching is harder, but they don't
need to include the foam. Randy's now also got his RV-10 seats
from Flightline interiors. They price the front set at $650, and
the rear at $675 with foam included, so that shows they also
consider the stitching on the front seat to be a little tougher.
When Mike gets final pricing published, I'll make sure to pass
it out along with photos of my seats. It's nice to know though
that for only in the neighborhood of $1300, a person can have
fully upholstered seats for the RV-10....a far cry from the
OEM standard that was used in the demo planes.
I didn't even take one picture of the RV-10 at the show...sorry. If
someone else has some they want posted, I can do that. I didn't
get to watch any planes fly, but for me, the show was a success.
I can't hardly wait for OSH this year. That show blows SN F
Message 44
| 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: | Fuel selector valve |
If you're building the -10, then the only engine that it is built for is the
IO-540 which is fuel injected, so the fuel selector should be right.
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 Chris , Susie
McGough
Subject: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
Hi could someone advise me if we need a diferent fuel selector when using a
fuel injected engine other than Vans standard one....not sure how it all
works.
Regards Chris,
----- Original Message -----
From: Mani <mailto:maniravee@sbcglobal.net> Ravee
Subject: Re: RV10-List: My Sun-N-Fun Experience (Long)
Tim, glad that I met you. And all the others....although I did not get to
join you guys for recreation. Was staying with friends and "had to be nice".
I did not get to see all the airshows either. I was more keen on drinkin up
all the info the vendors had to offer.
GRT - Spoke to Todd at great length. Their displays are a bit dull/dim when
compared to the blue mountain and chelton displays. But I can see that
support and funtionality will be absolutely top notch. Todd did admit that
their processor was not as fast as the others. But it has EVERYTHING! And at
a price that is very doable. I dont know if you guys checked out the OP
Technologies EFIS and PFD. Crystal clear hi res and extremely versatile. Big
ones too. They are upstarts, broke away from honeywell. Met their president,
an extremely nice and resourceful chap. Pricey! Blue mountain folks were not
so friendly and had an air about them. Displays, especially the big one was
awesome. Dont know if I will buy from them though. Chelton- what can you
say? Absolutely the best if you got the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. But, Josh there let
me on a lil secre...t soon to be announced to RV10 builders, believe it or
not. I guess they are seeing competition/loss of market share. :) Even the
Avidyne EX500 looked very good. Have brought back tons of brochures from all
of them which I have to peruse.
Agreed! the fiberglass panels that Randy was helping with or "modeling" in
front of, :) were indeed the cats meow. I will also be going that route I
think. They had the warmth of two tone finishes and looked extremely
professional - one would never achieve that degree of detail and good finish
with fabbing it at home. Looks better than the inside of a GM car. So you
get the idea. I did not order yet as I am still a ways from being able to
play with panels.
Speaking of panels, met this young man around the RV10 who is putting
together a software to be able to design/play with creating a panel. ( I
know about the other "panel ware", but this is new) He gave me a beta ver on
a CD. Have not yet had time to play eith it but will post feedback. Dont
remember his name, but will post when I get home tonight.
Did some digging in the alternative engines area. Wish I could call them the
mainstream engines. Met Jan Egg and Chuck Nearhoof. Very nice guys, both of
them, took a lot of time to talk with me. Jan's firewall forward kit is
impressive. Lots of detail and looks very finished and nice. He also
informed me that there will be a 3.0 liter version of the H6 with about 245
- 255 HP supercharged which may suit the RV10 verywell. Although he hastened
to add that it is in the works at Subaru and has not seen the light of day
yet. But, Subaru is not vaporware like many others. Innodyn, awesome. They
had, chuck says, started production at last. Had 4 actual production models
there - not prototypes. The quality of the constuction and finish looked
EXTREMELY nice. When asked about the weight or the lack thereof, he said
they are working on a "twinpack" design which would add adequate weight. It
will be two of their smaller turbines with a common drive, engineered to run
even whe n one turbine is lost. Interesting. If that takes off, they got my
money. Think of a ten with turbine engine? Not the crazy huge stuff that
people are retrofitting. Innodyne would be sweet. Have to wait on that.
Spoke to ECI for their 540 kit. Was told that a complete 540 kit will be
ready later this year or early next. They are engineering their cases and
some of the other stuff now. They have their own forging plant for their
cranks and use their proprietary metalurgy and treatments for hardening. Not
Lycoming's.
This is long enough, will write more if others are interested.
You are right Tim, lets make a " Show of Force" in OSH this year. It could
well be the
"Year of the 10"
<http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/01.gif> Mani
Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson
Hi all,
I didn't end up flying the Sundowner down to SNF this year, due
to the higher winds that were on my route, but I did go commercial
and made it there. I'm EXTREMELY glad I did. I was slightly
disappointed as to the size of the event. My guess is that there
are many many more vendors both large and small that show up
at OSH, and much greater attendance by planes flying in.
The layout of the show itself is nicer at OSH too. But, that
said, this show accomplished what I wanted it to.
First of all, I did get to meet maybe 10 or 15 other RV-10 builders.
There were others there that did not meet. I got to have dinner with
Ahn Vu, William Curtis, and Randy DeBauw and associated friends and
family. They're all very nice people.
One highlight of my trip was se eing the Aerocraft RV-10 panels.
Just before the show, when Randy said he'd be hanging out in their
booth, I emailed Randy and told him "Those panels look nice, but I'm
not really a molded fiberglass panel kind of guy." I myself really
like the look of a nice flat metal panel. But, when I walked into
Aerocraft, I was truly amazed. Those panels were beautiful! They
looked nice, felt nice, and truly look professional. They had
I believe 3 or 4 RV-10 panels on display, with at least 2 different
panel variations, and one with the new throttle quadrant in it.
Here are some photos:
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/panel/snfpanels/index.html
The deal at the show was this: Put down a $2500 REFUNDABLE deposit
(30 days refundable) at the show, and the panel itself would be
FREE. (The panel separate was estimated at $1400-1600) Free was
a pretty good price, so I listened on. Then, they'll run through
NUMEROUS revisions with you in picking out you r instruments and layout,
and they'll draw it up in CAD to get your approval and make sure it
all fits. Once you say "GO", your 30 day deposit time starts. They
will sell you all your instruments, laser cut your panel, do the paint
and powdercoat, install/wire/test your avionics, and then ship you
your completed panel. Not only is it wired, but it's extremely
meticulously wired. They showed me how on the heat-shrink wire labels
how they even label the wires to that when you're UNDER the panel
hooking things up, you can read them. If they route a wire on the
top of a bundle at the start of the run, it's still on the top
of the bundle at the end. Everything is straight and clean.
The sad part for me was that electrical stuff is my favorite. I
don't mind banging rivets, I hate deburring and fiberglassing, but
I LOVE wiring. But, when I started to think of the benefits, I
decided this was the right way to go. It saves literally HUNDRED S
of hours in research and wiring components. Not only that, but I
don't have to try to locate and install every last electrical
connector. And I get to spend that time with my kids. By the way,
the Throttle quadrant layout was very awesome. That thing operates
really smoothly.
Next, I got to visit GRT to see their system. I was really impressed.
They have more features than I ever imagined. They can even do
satellite weather now, on their map, for only $1500 as opposed to
the others costing upwards of $5000. The one loss in the whole thing
was that I REALLY liked the display of the ACS2005...I think that's
the nicest, cleanest, EIS that I've ever seen. But, the GRT EIS
only runs an additional $1200 approx for the IO-540, and there was
another benefit. I've now decided on a 3-screen GRT system. An
over/under display on the left side of the panel, and the single
screen on the right. The cool part is that I can now put my
EIS whereve r I want it. If I decide I want a horizon display on the
co-pilot side, a couple of button pushes does it. If I want that
screen to be a moving map with weather, that can be done. It really
gives you some extreme flexibility. In the end, the cost savings
really added up for me, to the point that I could now afford to get
that panel pre-wired and still probably save money. My goal of
the trip was mainly to see GRT, but I ended up making some significant
changes and adding functionality to my panel...at a lower cost.
The other nice show feature for me was being able to see my RV-10
seat at Cleaveland Aircraft Tools. DJ's custom interiors is doing
my seat covers, and their demo cover that was on display looked
really nice. It's not as fancy as the Oregon cover with it's
gusseted (sp?) lumbar pouch, and it wasn't leather, but they'll
do very nicely for me at a good cost savings. I didn't get any
final pricing yet, but they estimated that the rear seats will
cost about the same as an RV-7 seat set, and the front will
probably cost similar, as the stitching is harder, but they don't
need to include the foam. Randy's now also got his RV-10 seats
from Flightline interiors. They price the front set at $650, and
the rear at $675 with foam included, so that shows they also
consider the stitching on the front seat to be a little tougher.
When Mike gets final pricing published, I'll make sure to pass
it out along with photos of my seats. It's nice to know though
that for only in the neighborhood of $1300, a person can have
fully upholstered seats for the RV-10....a far cry from the
OEM standard that was used in the demo planes.
I didn't even take one picture of the RV-10 at the show...sorry. If
someone else has some they want posted, I can do that. I didn't
get to watch any planes fly, but for me, the show was a success.
I can't hardly wait for OSH this year. That show blows SN F
Message 45
| 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? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
Though I'm not building yet, may change from a -10 to a -7a, of may never
start (for financial or age reasons), I am very interested in this option.
I will continue to monitor this thread, and when and if I start building,
will follow up again.
Jack Sargeant
1127 Patricia St.
Wichita, KS 67208-2642
316/683-5268
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
I think we are just checking out hull coverage right now, liability would be
through standard carriers. The group would be resonsible up to a set value
then excess coverage would indemnify the balance. That's the hook, getting
that coverage in place. I do this type of risk managment for Berkley Risk
www.berkleyrisk.com It can be done, just takes enough interest and capital.
I was feeling out the population to see if there was any interest in getting
involved in this type of program. And no I'm not marketing it for this
company, just thought it would be a way for everyone to get better rates, a
peice of ownership in their investment of premium.
Message 46
| 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 |
>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.
OK, Ill bite, the first time someone said something like this to me, I was a new
pilot and I figured seems to make sense, so I did not explore further. Since
then however, Ive gained a bit more experience and now I think this is totally
bunk. If you can keep a responsive plane upright looking out the window, then
any challenge in keeping it upright in the clouds is a statement about the
pilot, not the plane.
Lets face it, before fly-by-wire, military fighters, which are arguable more responsive
than RVs, were hand flown in IFR. Granted they probably had more training
than the average pilot but I think if this was a huge problem, there would
not have been any all weather interceptors.
Compared to most Cessnas, the Cardinal is very responsive in roll. I dont find
it much harder to fly IFR than say a Skyhawk. Maybe its because I flew it in
the clouds without an autopilot for years before I finally could afford a autopilot.
Its uncommon that great seat of the pants pilots are also good instrument pilots.
I consider myself a poor seat of the pants pilot, but a good instrument pilot.
I think a better statement is that the sportier RVs (4, 6, 7, & 8) enhance
the seat of the pants experience which these same pilots rely on in IMC to
their detriment.
William Curtis
#40237 - wings
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/
Message 47
| 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: Fuel selector valve |
--> RV10-List message posted by: James Ochs <jochs@froody.org>
This calls to mind a question (maybe a dumb one, but I don't know), is
there a reason to not have a fuel selector that has a "both" position
similar to the Cessna's... is it a low wing thing, a fuel pump thing, or
just a style thing? It seems like one of those things that would be nice
to not have to think about all the time. I'm sure I'd get in the habit,
but on the other hand i've seen plenty of ntsb reports that say
something similar to "fuel selector was set to the left tank. Left tank,
carb, and fuel lines deviod of fuel. X gallons remaining in right tank.
Probable cause: poor fuel management"
James
Jesse Saint wrote:
> If youre building the -10, then the only engine that it is built for
> is the IO-540 which is fuel injected, so the fuel selector should be
> right.
>
> Jesse Saint
>
> I-TEC, Inc.
>
> jesse@itecusa.org <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
>
> www.itecusa.org <http://www.itecusa.org>
>
> W: 352-465-4545
>
> C: 352-427-0285
>
> F: 815-377-3694
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Chris ,
> Susie McGough
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:39 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
>
> Hi could someone advise me if we need a diferent fuel selector when
> using a fuel injected engine other than Vans standard one....not sure
> how it all works.
>
[snipola]
Message 48
| 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 |
I don't want to belabor this thread, so this will be my last input on the
topic, but I wanted to share a post that was made in 2001 on the RV
Matronics list having to do with RV's and IFR. I think Jack does a nice job
of stating what I believe William states, and I happen to agree. These
planes can be flown IFR if properly equipped and if the person flying them
is properly trained and current. I just think that the RV-10 and RV-9 would
be much easier than a quicker responding RV-7 or RV-8. Nuff said.
Here is the post...and thanks to Jack for his input...
I'm instrument rated and always intended to use my RV-6A primarily for IFR
cross country flights. To date I've flown my airplane 82.4 hours, 1.9 in
actual IMC, and have flown seven instrument approaches in actual weather.
With all humility, I can say that my RV-6A is the best equipped for IFR
operations of any RV I have ever seen in real life or photographs. It is
equipped with an S-Tec System 50 two-axis autopilot, among many other
things. I say this because I think that single-pilot IFR is, arguably, the
most difficult of the tasks commonly performed by a pilot, and it's great to
have an airplane equipped and designed in a way that makes IFR operations,
especially instrument approaches, as easy as possible. Admittedly, it all
costs money, adds weight, and diminishes aerobatic capability, so each of us
has to make the choices that are best for himself.
My observations, for what they're worth, are: (a) the RV-6A is more
difficult to fly on instruments than the Piper Archers and Warriors I used
to fly because it will depart from straight and level flight more quickly,
but it is certainly controllable by a proficient pilot; (b) I think it is
especially important for one to maintain one's currency in his/her RV
through frequent practice approaches (something I haven't done
conscientiously in recent months); (c) a two-axis autopilot is great, but I
would say that it's only marginally more useful than a wing leveler; (d)
cockpit organization is more difficult than in an airplane with a control
yoke because one needs to find a different place for the approach plate and
timer; and (e) good panel and cockpit lighting are essential for night IFR
operations, especially approaches flown with your approach plate on a
kneeboard.
Importantly, I deliberately designed my airplane so that everything would be
in my hands to the extent possible, so that I wouldn't have to distract
myself during IFR operations moving my hands and looking for or operating
switches, levers, or whatever. Thus, I have flap, autopilot disconnect, PTT,
and landing light switches in my stick grip along with a coolie hat switch
for roll and pitch trim. My radio stack is directly above my throttle, prop,
carburetor heat, and mixture controls. My transponder is a KT76C so I don't
have to turn a knob for each digit of my squawk code. As I fly the approach
with my right hand on the stick grip and my left on the throttle, everything
I need is at hand, so to speak. I commend this approach to anyone who is
interested in IFR flight with his/her RV.
Finally, I hasten to add that I don't agree with Mike Seager that RVs
shouldn't be equipped for or flown IFR. My airplane is heavy, 1184 basic
weight, but it was a tradeoff I made deliberately, and I'm glad I did. I
agree with the observation made by one of the others who responded to this
posting that an IFR-equipped airplane is a safer one.
I often reflect on the proposition that, if Bill and Jeremy Benedict had had
IFR capability in the RV in which they bought the farm, they might still be
alive. Something to think about, anyway.
Best wishes,
Jack Abell
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Switching to a 7A
>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.
OK, I'll bite, the first time someone said something like this to me, I was
a new pilot and I figured "seems to make sense", so I did not explore
further. Since then however, I've gained a bit more experience and now I
think this is totally bunk. If you can keep a responsive plane upright
looking out the window, then any challenge in keeping it upright in the
clouds is a statement about the pilot, not the plane.
Let's face it, before fly-by-wire, military fighters, which are arguable
more responsive than RVs, were hand flown in IFR. Granted they probably had
more training than the average pilot but I think if this was a huge problem,
there would not have been any all weather interceptors.
Compared to most Cessnas, the Cardinal is very responsive in roll. I don't
find it much harder to fly IFR than say a Skyhawk. Maybe it's because I flew
it in the clouds without an autopilot for years before I finally could
afford a autopilot.
It's uncommon that great "seat of the pants" pilots are also good instrument
pilots. I consider myself a poor "seat of the pants" pilot, but a good
instrument pilot. I think a better statement is that the sportier RVs (4, 6,
7, & 8) enhance the "seat of the pants" experience which these same pilots
rely on in IMC to their detriment.
William Curtis
#40237 - wings
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/
Message 49
| 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 |
I agree with William. I had a Piper and was in the process of buying a Bonanza
and they, Piper lovers, kept telling me not to buy one because they are to fast
and slick, you will have a hard time in heavy IFR. I didn't find any of that
to be true as long as I paid attention to the instruments. I flew it about 700
hrs before buying another plane and never felt is was to nimble in IFR. The
Piper was slower, thus giving you more time to think things through, and more
control heavy compared to the Bonanza but once I was used to the difference it
just became second nature.
----- Original Message -----
From: William Curtis
To: RV10-List@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 6:33 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Switching to a 7A
>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.
OK, I'll bite, the first time someone said something like this to me, I was a
new pilot and I figured "seems to make sense", so I did not explore further.
Since then however, I've gained a bit more experience and now I think this is
totally bunk. If you can keep a responsive plane upright looking out the window,
then any challenge in keeping it upright in the clouds is a statement about
the pilot, not the plane.
Let's face it, before fly-by-wire, military fighters, which are arguable more
responsive than RVs, were hand flown in IFR. Granted they probably had more training
than the average pilot but I think if this was a huge problem, there would
not have been any all weather interceptors.
Compared to most Cessnas, the Cardinal is very responsive in roll. I don't find
it much harder to fly IFR than say a Skyhawk. Maybe it's because I flew it
in the clouds without an autopilot for years before I finally could afford a autopilot.
It's uncommon that great "seat of the pants" pilots are also good instrument
pilots. I consider myself a poor "seat of the pants" pilot, but a good instrument
pilot. I think a better statement is that the sportier RVs (4, 6, 7, & 8)
enhance the "seat of the pants" experience which these same pilots rely on in
IMC to their detriment.
William Curtis
#40237 - wings
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/
Message 50
| 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: | Fuel selector valve |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Mani Ravee" <maniravee@sbcglobal.net>
Yes, I do have to admit that this one IS one I would do. Why switch tanks
when they can be easily engineered to drain from both. An astute pilot still
would monitor the fuel anyway. Just like I do on my 172. What ideas have we
to accomplish this? Me, I am a poor for invention MD. Let's hear it from the
engineers. This, in my opinion would add to overall safety considerably and
reduce pilot workload in single pilot IFR environments that we all would be
flying. Good thought James!
Mani Ravee, MD MC
Pulmonary Medicine & Critical Care
Maj. US Army Medical Corps
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Ochs
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
--> RV10-List message posted by: James Ochs <jochs@froody.org>
This calls to mind a question (maybe a dumb one, but I don't know), is
there a reason to not have a fuel selector that has a "both" position
similar to the Cessna's... is it a low wing thing, a fuel pump thing, or
just a style thing? It seems like one of those things that would be nice
to not have to think about all the time. I'm sure I'd get in the habit,
but on the other hand i've seen plenty of ntsb reports that say
something similar to "fuel selector was set to the left tank. Left tank,
carb, and fuel lines deviod of fuel. X gallons remaining in right tank.
Probable cause: poor fuel management"
James
Jesse Saint wrote:
> If you're building the -10, then the only engine that it is built for
> is the IO-540 which is fuel injected, so the fuel selector should be
> right.
>
> Jesse Saint
>
> I-TEC, Inc.
>
> jesse@itecusa.org <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
>
> www.itecusa.org <http://www.itecusa.org>
>
> W: 352-465-4545
>
> C: 352-427-0285
>
> F: 815-377-3694
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Chris ,
> Susie McGough
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:39 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
>
> Hi could someone advise me if we need a diferent fuel selector when
> using a fuel injected engine other than Vans standard one....not sure
> how it all works.
>
[snipola]
Message 51
| 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? |
K is also found right smack in the middle between J and M. Go figure. The
risk pool starts a good thought going. Count me in Rick. Bob K
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
"K" is also the type code for heavy wall copper pipe. 8*) KABONG Do Not
Archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne <mailto:weeav8ter@grandecom.net> Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Actually Rick K is a computer term which represent 1024bytes so K is 24 to
high for my notation :>}
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne <mailto:weeav8ter@grandecom.net> Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Got me that time :>} You are correct of coarse.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick <mailto:ricksked@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
Wayne,
Please tell me you meant 150 "K" not "m"....I would be going after a
Gulfstream for that kinda money. :D
Rick S.
40185
========================================= Features Subscriptions
====================================
Message 52
| 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: | Mark Lamon #40269 |
1.34 SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID Subject contains a unique ID
Mark,
Contact Dave Hertner at effectus@rogers.com Your post didn't include your e-mail
address.
Dave
Message 53
| 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="1057195497:sNHT44430096"
| Subject: | Fuel selector valve |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
No, No, No....Don't do it.
There is a reason that most low wing aircraft don't have a "both" position.
Your 172 is ENTIRELY different when it comes to fuel system design. There
are multiple reasons, I'll quickly list a few here.
#1) In a high wing airplane, your fuel is gravity fed, and both wing tanks
are usually vented and plumbed together from a fuel standpoint. This means
the fuel naturally when flowing down heads to the engine on it's own. In
most cases, the fuel in both tanks will remain relatively level.
#2) In your low wing airplane, fuel must be sucked from the tanks and pumped
to the engine. Low wing airplanes with multiple tanks and a "both" position
have a nasty habit of emptying one tank first, then sucking air from the
empy tank whilst you still have another tank that will be perfectly full.
#3) Your RV tanks are vented independently. Any sligh variation in plumbing
without tying the vents together WILL result in one tank emptying before the
other, OR worse yet, fuel being pushed from one tank to the other and
overboard (assuming you ahve the tanks tied together like your high wing).
No matter how you slice it, it's a bad idea. Yes, there are ways to do it,
but messing around with a perfectly good fuel system for no reason is asking
for trouble. This is not something to take lightly, and it's NOT a simple
matter of buying a fuel selector with a "both" position and plopping it in
the middle of your plane. Do that, and you WILL have problems sooner or
later.
Sorry if this note came across harsh, but this subject seems to come up
every once and awhile....a quick search of the archives will give you a
whole pile of information on this issue.
Cheers,
Stein - Airplane Builder & Flier
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mani Ravee
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Mani Ravee" <maniravee@sbcglobal.net>
Yes, I do have to admit that this one IS one I would do. Why switch tanks
when they can be easily engineered to drain from both. An astute pilot still
would monitor the fuel anyway. Just like I do on my 172. What ideas have we
to accomplish this? Me, I am a poor for invention MD. Let's hear it from the
engineers. This, in my opinion would add to overall safety considerably and
reduce pilot workload in single pilot IFR environments that we all would be
flying. Good thought James!
Mani Ravee, MD MC
Pulmonary Medicine & Critical Care
Maj. US Army Medical Corps
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Ochs
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
--> RV10-List message posted by: James Ochs <jochs@froody.org>
This calls to mind a question (maybe a dumb one, but I don't know), is
there a reason to not have a fuel selector that has a "both" position
similar to the Cessna's... is it a low wing thing, a fuel pump thing, or
just a style thing? It seems like one of those things that would be nice
to not have to think about all the time. I'm sure I'd get in the habit,
but on the other hand i've seen plenty of ntsb reports that say
something similar to "fuel selector was set to the left tank. Left tank,
carb, and fuel lines deviod of fuel. X gallons remaining in right tank.
Probable cause: poor fuel management"
James
Jesse Saint wrote:
> If you're building the -10, then the only engine that it is built for
> is the IO-540 which is fuel injected, so the fuel selector should be
> right.
>
> Jesse Saint
>
> I-TEC, Inc.
>
> jesse@itecusa.org <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
>
> www.itecusa.org <http://www.itecusa.org>
>
> W: 352-465-4545
>
> C: 352-427-0285
>
> F: 815-377-3694
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Chris ,
> Susie McGough
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:39 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
>
> Hi could someone advise me if we need a diferent fuel selector when
> using a fuel injected engine other than Vans standard one....not sure
> how it all works.
>
[snipola]
Message 54
| 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: | Fuel selector valve |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "James Ochs" <jochs@froody.org>
Ahh, I thought there might be a reason for it ;)
Thanks for the insight.
James
Do not archive.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stein Bruch
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
No, No, No....Don't do it.
There is a reason that most low wing aircraft don't have a "both" position.
Your 172 is ENTIRELY different when it comes to fuel system design. There
are multiple reasons, I'll quickly list a few here.
#1) In a high wing airplane, your fuel is gravity fed, and both wing tanks
are usually vented and plumbed together from a fuel standpoint. This means
the fuel naturally when flowing down heads to the engine on it's own. In
most cases, the fuel in both tanks will remain relatively level.
#2) In your low wing airplane, fuel must be sucked from the tanks and pumped
to the engine. Low wing airplanes with multiple tanks and a "both" position
have a nasty habit of emptying one tank first, then sucking air from the
empy tank whilst you still have another tank that will be perfectly full.
#3) Your RV tanks are vented independently. Any sligh variation in plumbing
without tying the vents together WILL result in one tank emptying before the
other, OR worse yet, fuel being pushed from one tank to the other and
overboard (assuming you ahve the tanks tied together like your high wing).
No matter how you slice it, it's a bad idea. Yes, there are ways to do it,
but messing around with a perfectly good fuel system for no reason is asking
for trouble. This is not something to take lightly, and it's NOT a simple
matter of buying a fuel selector with a "both" position and plopping it in
the middle of your plane. Do that, and you WILL have problems sooner or
later.
Sorry if this note came across harsh, but this subject seems to come up
every once and awhile....a quick search of the archives will give you a
whole pile of information on this issue.
Cheers,
Stein - Airplane Builder & Flier
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mani Ravee
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Mani Ravee" <maniravee@sbcglobal.net>
Yes, I do have to admit that this one IS one I would do. Why switch tanks
when they can be easily engineered to drain from both. An astute pilot still
would monitor the fuel anyway. Just like I do on my 172. What ideas have we
to accomplish this? Me, I am a poor for invention MD. Let's hear it from the
engineers. This, in my opinion would add to overall safety considerably and
reduce pilot workload in single pilot IFR environments that we all would be
flying. Good thought James!
Mani Ravee, MD MC
Pulmonary Medicine & Critical Care
Maj. US Army Medical Corps
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Ochs
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
--> RV10-List message posted by: James Ochs <jochs@froody.org>
This calls to mind a question (maybe a dumb one, but I don't know), is
there a reason to not have a fuel selector that has a "both" position
similar to the Cessna's... is it a low wing thing, a fuel pump thing, or
just a style thing? It seems like one of those things that would be nice
to not have to think about all the time. I'm sure I'd get in the habit,
but on the other hand i've seen plenty of ntsb reports that say
something similar to "fuel selector was set to the left tank. Left tank,
carb, and fuel lines deviod of fuel. X gallons remaining in right tank.
Probable cause: poor fuel management"
James
Jesse Saint wrote:
> If you're building the -10, then the only engine that it is built for
> is the IO-540 which is fuel injected, so the fuel selector should be
> right.
>
> Jesse Saint
>
> I-TEC, Inc.
>
> jesse@itecusa.org <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
>
> www.itecusa.org <http://www.itecusa.org>
>
> W: 352-465-4545
>
> C: 352-427-0285
>
> F: 815-377-3694
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Chris ,
> Susie McGough
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:39 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
>
> Hi could someone advise me if we need a diferent fuel selector when
> using a fuel injected engine other than Vans standard one....not sure
> how it all works.
>
[snipola]
Message 55
| 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: Fuel selector valve |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Ercoupes (low wing) have an engine driven pump that fills a "header" tank
located in the upper part of the cockpit area. Controls, your feet etc are
mounted under it. Carb is gravity fed from this tank. BUT it still works
like the 172 system. KABONG Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Ochs" <jochs@froody.org>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "James Ochs" <jochs@froody.org>
>
> Ahh, I thought there might be a reason for it ;)
>
> Thanks for the insight.
>
> James
>
> Do not archive.
Message 56
| 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? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
I had dinner my Insurance Underwriter this evening just to ask about
Rick's point and he reports the engine used in an RV has not been an
issue in setting rates. End of that discussion with him. Who builds it
is, their specific experience at building does and the hull value
reflects what is done. Put a turbine in it and the company goes "Whoa,
wait a minute". Mega hull coverage. I asked a second time on the issue
of (that dirty word Alternate Powerplant), second reply, no issue. No
change in rate. Now that does not denote encouragement on a topic which
can place me in purgatory with the lurkers on this list about AE. So I
must have my wires crossed.
First question, yes, Lancair has endorsed, encouraged and sponsored
regular High Performance Ground School Training. Both at their annual
picnic in September and at Sun "N Fun. I have done it , its worth it, I
endorse it. I encourage this group to consider it. When the number of
low experience pilots complete a kit built aircraft and do not
coincidentally pursue appropriate advanced training there is a
measurable result. On the Yak list, they had a significant increase in
gear up, prop strike incidents, last fall. They quickly took the
initiative, became proactive and implemented a training syllabus. It
was a shocking reality that numerous Lancair IVP builders were spending
scores of months building beautiful aircraft only to get hit with the
hard statistics of lack of qualified training results in claims which
raise rates or make availability like winning a lottery. I certainly
don't purport to set the bar but it is now a worthy discussion prior to
the flying statistics to soon include RV-10s.
Count me in on a pool for hull coverage if written correctly and with
appropriates checks against frivolous claims.
John
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
John,
All of that would fall into loss control measures. I hadn't even thought
about that portion yet but it would have to be addressed and those ideas
are a great starting place. Does Lancair have a program now? From an
aviation viewpoint I would consider them harder to insure just because
of the higher performance numbers. It would really make sense for that
group of builders although their numbers are smaller and their risk of
higher incurred claims cost is greater.
Rick
to
and
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! --
|