Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:39 AM - Re: Fuel selector valve (Mani Ravee)
2. 04:50 AM - Re: Fuel selector valve (Wayne Edgerton)
3. 05:28 AM - Re: Fuel selector valve (Jesse Saint)
4. 05:29 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Jesse Saint)
5. 05:36 AM - Re: Re: Switching to a 7A (Jesse Saint)
6. 06:54 AM - Re: Mark Lamon #40269 (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
7. 07:13 AM - Re: Fuel selector valve (Mani Ravee)
8. 09:23 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Rick)
9. 09:38 AM - Re: Oshkosh (Rick)
10. 10:18 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
11. 10:21 AM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto)
12. 12:28 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
13. 09:09 PM - Missing wing spare rivet(s) (William Curtis)
14. 09:46 PM - Re: Missing wing spare rivet(s) (DejaVu)
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: | Fuel selector valve |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Mani Ravee" <maniravee@sbcglobal.net>
Well, so much for a great idea. Thanks Stein. :)
Mani
-----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
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel selector valve |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter@grandecom.net>
Hi Stein - You know I had George Orendorff tell me the same thing as you
just submitted and I believe both of you guys. I've never owned a Cessna,
but I've flown a few and I noticed on the 172SP, for instance, on a long
cross country I made that it didn't burn very evenly when on both. I thought
the gauge was broke because one was empting much quicker than the other but
the mechanic told me that they just don't burn off that evenly.
However on the Beechcraft that I've owned there was a both selection which
seemed to work great.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
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
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:51 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 6:17 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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 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: | Fuel selector valve |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
It seems that the issue must be more that the tanks are vented independently
than that they are low-wing. High wing airplanes would cross-flow also,
even though the valve is below the level of either tank. Take two buckets 4
feet in the air and run a hose down to the ground and to the other bucket
(one filled with water and the other empty) and they would crossfeed to
level. If, however, they were sealed buckets and one had more pressure than
the other, you are exactly right, the one with more pressure would empty
into the other one. The only way that it might work would be to have a
one-way valve in each line that would only let fuel out of the tank, and not
into it through the fuel line. Even doing it this way, if you had more
pressure in one tank from the vent, that tank would drain first. It's best
to keep the separate or to join the vents. I know which one is easier.
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 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 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Wow! It's amazing how long this thing keeps going.
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 bob.kaufmann
Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 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: Switching to a 7A |
Is it just me, or is the issue not that you can't see the ground but rather
the issue of turbulence? When bouncing around in a J3 where you have to
move the stick a ton to bank hard, getting bounced with your hand on the
stick won't cause you to roll 45% before you realize it. In the RV-7A I
flew, moving the stick less than 1 inch seemed to put it in a least a 45%
bank. If you got bumped hard with your hand on the stick there, it would
make a much bigger difference. I am not arguing one way or the other, but
just trying to clarify that it seems the arguments are not the issue of
being in the clouds and not seeing the ground or horizon, but air
turbulence. It does make sense that the more responsive the plane is, the
more careful you would have to be on the controls to keep it level.
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 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 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: | Mark Lamon #40269 |
Dave
If you are looking for builder #40269 that is me Dan Lloyd you can
contact me danlloyd@wernerco.com , but if you are looking for Mark I do
not have his contact info.
Dan 40269
Slo build wings....
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Hertner
Subject: RV10-List: Mark Lamon #40269
Mark,
Contact Dave Hertner at effectus@rogers.com Your post didn't include
your e-mail address.
Dave
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: | Fuel selector valve |
>> However on the Beechcraft that I've owned there was a both selection
which seemed to work great. <<
Now how did they do it in the Beech? Were the tanks vented separately? How
about when you have tip tanks? Does it flow into the tanks of the same side
as they get empty? Sorry about my ignorance.
Mani
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel selector valve
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter@grandecom.net>
Hi Stein - You know I had George Orendorff tell me the same thing as you
just submitted and I believe both of you guys. I've never owned a Cessna,
but I've flown a few and I noticed on the 172SP, for instance, on a long
cross country I made that it didn't burn very evenly when on both. I thought
the gauge was broke because one was empting much quicker than the other but
the mechanic told me that they just don't burn off that evenly.
However on the Beechcraft that I've owned there was a both selection which
seemed to work great.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
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
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:51 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 6:17 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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 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: | 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 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 |
|
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? |
Another good thing would be re-current training in type, that is now a
requirement for Cirrus, and allot of us are putting in the same type of
avionics, and annual training helps everyone. Plus it is a good excuse
for us all to get together for an annual RV-10 flyin or such.
Dan
40269
_____
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
One of my thoughts was to make it easier for the alternate engine users,
I think most of us agree that the folks using these engines are having
success and ingnorance of the insurance gurus are the stumbling block.
With John's suggestion of inspecting each potential pool aircraft for
workmanship and airworthiness it would be a vital step to protect each
members interest in "their" program. A network for transition training
and ground school referesher to include first flight education would all
contribute to the lowering the chance of paying for an airplane. I am
getting information put together now and am going to build a website to
put it on. I expect to have a pilot program for review in the next 30
days. I still need to get some legal counsel on the whole operation
before I get too much invested, that will be next week.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
to
and
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: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Can we have a fly-in more centrally-located than Oregon, though?!?
TDT
east-coaster
-----Original Message-----
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Another good thing would be re-current training in type, that is now a requirement
for Cirrus, and allot of us are putting in the same type of avionics, and
annual training helps everyone. Plus it is a good excuse for us all to get together
for an annual RV-10 flyin or such.
Dan
40269
_____
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
One of my thoughts was to make it easier for the alternate engine users, I think
most of us agree that the folks using these engines are having success and ingnorance
of the insurance gurus are the stumbling block. With John's suggestion
of inspecting each potential pool aircraft for workmanship and airworthiness
it would be a vital step to protect each members interest in "their" program.
A network for transition training and ground school referesher to include first
flight education would all contribute to the lowering the chance of paying
for an airplane. I am getting information put together now and am going to build
a website to put it on. I expect to have a pilot program for review in the
next 30 days. I still need to get some legal counsel on the whole operation before
I get too much invested, that will be next week.
Rick S.
40185
Features Navigator Photoshare, and much
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? |
I am in PA, and somewhere in the middle would be nice!
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Can we have a fly-in more centrally-located than Oregon, though?!?
TDT
east-coaster
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 1:18 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it
take?
=09
=09
Another good thing would be re-current training in type, that is
now a requirement for Cirrus, and allot of us are putting in the same
type of avionics, and annual training helps everyone. Plus it is a good
excuse for us all to get together for an annual RV-10 flyin or such.
Dan
40269
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 12:22 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it
take?
=09
=09
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
One of my thoughts was to make it easier for the alternate
engine users, I think most of us agree that the folks using these
engines are having success and ingnorance of the insurance gurus are the
stumbling block. With John's suggestion of inspecting each potential
pool aircraft for workmanship and airworthiness it would be a vital step
to protect each members interest in "their" program. A network for
transition training and ground school referesher to include first flight
education would all contribute to the lowering the chance of paying for
an airplane. I am getting information put together now and am going to
build a website to put it on. I expect to have a pilot program for
review in the next 30 days. I still need to get some legal counsel on
the whole operation before I get too much invested, that will be next
week.
Rick S.
40185
Features Navigator
Photoshare, and much
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Missing wing spare rivet(s) |
I was finishing up riveting the top skins on my right wing and noticed a missing
rivet on the wing spare. I checked the same position on the left wing and that
hole was filled. Anyone else have this or any other missing rivet(s)?
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/07Wings/wings89.html
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/07Wings/images/wings89.jpg
William Curtis
#40237
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/
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: Missing wing spare rivet(s) |
William, I didn't have any on mine but remember discussions regarding missing rivets,
or holes that were not supposed to have rivets but did.
Anh
#141
Fitting Doors
----- Original Message -----
From: William Curtis
To: RV10-List@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 12:08 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Missing wing spare rivet(s)
I was finishing up riveting the top skins on my right wing and noticed a missing
rivet on the wing spare. I checked the same position on the left wing and
that hole was filled. Anyone else have this or any other missing rivet(s)?
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/07Wings/wings89.html
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/07Wings/images/wings89.jpg
William Curtis
#40237
http://members.core.com/~wcurtis/RV/
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! --
|