Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:23 AM - Re: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPSChelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS (Russell Daves)
2. 04:32 AM - Lighting question (James Hein)
3. 07:41 AM - Re: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPSChelton Panels, (Tim Olson)
4. 07:41 AM - Re: Lighting question (Tim Olson)
5. 07:59 AM - Re: Lighting question (Brian Denk)
6. 08:37 AM - Re: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPSChelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS (James Ochs)
7. 08:47 AM - Re: RV10: Regarding Whirlwind Composite group buy (CustomACProp@aol.com)
8. 09:48 AM - QB Fuse - Hinges (Tim Olson)
9. 10:15 AM - Re: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPSChelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS (Patrick Thyssen)
10. 10:41 AM - Re: QB Fuse - Hinges (DejaVu)
11. 12:26 PM - Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPSChelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS (Wayne Edgerton)
12. 12:31 PM - Re: 4 Days Missing (Matt Dralle)
13. 04:20 PM - priming and flush riveting (Dj Merrill)
14. 04:33 PM - Re: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPSChelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS (Mark)
15. 04:52 PM - Re: priming and flush riveting ()
16. 05:04 PM - Re: priming and flush riveting (McGANN, Ron)
17. 05:58 PM - Re: priming and flush riveting (Brcue Patton)
18. 08:05 PM - Tank skin to baffle rivet question (Droopy Erickson)
19. 08:38 PM - Re: Tank skin to baffle rivet question (DejaVu)
20. 08:48 PM - Re: priming and flush riveting (Dj Merrill)
21. 08:51 PM - Garmin 480 glideslope (Rick Lark)
22. 09:05 PM - Re: Tank skin to baffle rivet question (Tim Olson)
23. 09:06 PM - Re: Garmin 480 glideslope (Tim Olson)
24. 09:22 PM - Re: Tank skin to baffle rivet question (Droopy Erickson)
25. 11:29 PM - Re: Tank skin to baffle rivet question (John Jessen)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPSChelton Panels, Autopilots, |
and GPS
I agree with John's analysis, that you need a TSO'd GPS in the RV-10 if you want
to legally fly a GPS approach. That is why I have designed my three screen
GRT panel (Duel EFIS & Sport EFIS) around both an SL-30 and an IFR approved GNC
300XL. That way not only do I have a second Comm but I also have a TSO'd IFR
GPS.
Having said that, I am going with the WASS option on the GRT duel EFIS so even
when I am legally flying the GPS approach on the GNC 300XL I have the WASS info
displayed on the GRT EFIS.
In addition I also have the ability to shoot an ILS on the SL-30 with the ILS displayed
on the GRT EFIS.
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 |
|
d="scan'208"; a="960667065:sNHT14823370"
| Subject: | Lighting question |
--> RV10-List message posted by: James Hein <n8vim@arrl.net>
Hi all,
Well, the rudder is almost done and a few questions popped into my mind:
1. Where does the beacon go? (In the 152/172 it is at the top of the
vertical stabilizer, but where do you put it in the RV-10?)
2. What nav light package is everyone going with? I'd prefer LED
lighting; Who makes LED nav lights for the RV-10? I'd prefer to get some
soon so I have them when Ido the tail fairings.
3. What strobe package does everyone prefer? (Just starting to think on
the strobes now)
Thanks!
-Jim 40384
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 |
|
Autopilots, and GPS
| Subject: | Re: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPSChelton Panels, |
Autopilots, and GPS
You know, John did a great job with that...thanks John. But, I don't
agree as fully as you after getting the info that I've attached to
this email. It's an EAA paper on the subject of IFR Equipment in
a homebuilt. I also put it on my site at:
http://www.myrv10.com/files/guides/IFR_equipment.pdf
if you can't get it from this email.
I just got it from Direct to Avionics today. My take on it is
now that you will need to have a Nav/Com (preferrably with Glideslope
capability) in your homebuilt, no matter what you do, if you fly IFF
in a homebuilt. Because it won't be technically tru to consider
ANY GPS right now, Garmin 430/480/530 or other....to be legal for
anything other than a secondary NAV source. I agree that you will
NOT need to use equipment with a TSO. But, the catch is that you
have to document or demonstrate that it performs to the TSO's standard.
That is probably pretty tricky to do. The Chelton would absolutely
be easier than many, because it's running the SAME software as
it's TSO'd "Pro" line of equipment. If you go with something like
the GRT/BMA or anything else with an internal GPS, there's not even
a BASIS for you to go on if you want to try to show TSO equivalency.
But, how are you going to verify the TSO equivalency? I guess after
my initial fly off, I'll have to get the TSO specs, and then put it
back into Phase I for a while and try to do some thorough flight
testing and prove that it matches the TSO'd specs of the Pro unit...
if that's even possible. And, since we can't use the 430/530/480 as a
primary nav anyway, (in GPS use I mean), then our Nav receiver is an
important part of our panel.....that was the big eye opener. So,
people with a GNS480 in their panel shouldn't consider it as making
them legal because of the GPS....it's legal because of the NAV/GS
receiver.
So, what does this mean to us? It means that Russell is good, because
he has the SL-30 NAV/GS. It means that the GNC 300XL is not needed to
be TSO'd, because NONE of the GPS's will be his *legal* primary Nav
device. Same with my panel....I have the SL-30 for the "legal"
department, but the Chelton wouldn't have to be. Also, the SL-30
has a built in CDI (although not fancy), so you should be able to
do a VOR approach with it. I wouldn't agree that the CDI head has
to be installed, but, for doing an ILS it might be needed. (Can
someone who's flown a 430/530/480 tell me if any of these has an
internal display of a glideslope...or just a CDI?) Not that the
CDI head wouldn't be useful. I may decide to cut a hole for one
myself.
Also, regarding the WAAS approach, it's easy to see now why the
GNS480, or remote mount FreeFlight GPS would be "required" because
even the Chelton Pro's WAAS receiver isn't TSO'd for WAAS approaches
yet. Perhaps if the Pro was, the sport might be more suitable.
The thing is, given all of the above info (esp. the attachment),
perhaps the internal WAAS could well be just fine for the approach
without the GNS480/Freeflight....since we don't have to have
TSO'd equipment....the big catch is, how do we prove that our WAAS
receiver is equivalent to the TSO spec? That would be pretty hard to
do if the manufacturer hasn't done it on their pro model.
Funny how hard this all has to be, given that the EAA has an
interpretation, each person also has their interpretation, and
now I have to have my own interpretation of the EAA's paper.
The FAA surely doesn't spell things out with perfection regarding
homebuilts....although that might be to our benefit, as if they
did, it might be more restrictive than the way it is now.
So, for those who think TSO'd is the only way, I guess buying all
TSO'd equipment can't hurt.....but your panel's gonna cost some
big bucks if you insist on TSO'd stuff, and it's never going to be
cutting edge. For those who think no TSO'd stuff is required, it
looks like you should consider a good Nav/Com/GS receiver at least
that is TSO'd. Then there people like me....the middle grounders.
I think TSO'd would be best chosen if possible, but I'm starting to
see that perhaps the regs are as such that our homebuilts will NEVER
technically be equivalent in legal capability to a certified aircraft,
because even if we install TSO'd GPS equipment, we still can't rely
on it for primary nav using the GPS function....so perhaps a mix
of TSO'd and non-TSO'd is the realistic way to go.
Josh from Direct2Avionics did say that the WAAS stuff is pretty new
and that I might do well to contact the EAA myself directly again
to see how everything is currently interpreted by them. My guess is
that since the Feds are pushing GPS/WAAS so they can decommission their
VOR's and NDB approaches, we're likely to see some bending on the
GPS issues, and perhaps someday in the near future we'll be able
to use GPS for primary Nav.
For myself, some of this is starting to have an impact on my panel
again. While I think an SL-30/SL-40 combo would be fine, I played
with the GNS480 simulator yesterday a bit and was able to quickly
learn how to do the basic funtions without a manual. I couldn't
currently flight-plan in it, or set up an approach, but I'm more
comfortable now. So I am now leaning back towards a SL-30 as
Nav/Com 1, (to autotune with my chelton), and the GNS-480 as
Nav/Com 2....as my WAAS legal receiver, and backup Nav/GPS. I have
to find out if I can display Glideslope on it's screens, but if I
can, then I'm not putting in an external CDI.
Oh, and by the way....since the Chelton's are all independent
of eachother, when something says you need 3 of these, or 2 of those,
each screen can be counted separately. So, that CDI from the 480
could be displayed on my Chelton Screen #2, even if I lost my AHRS
and screen 1 completely. So this still leans me away from the
external CDI.
Wow, there's a lot to know. The panel is absolutely the most stressful
part of planning this airplane for me.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Russell Daves wrote:
> I agree with John's analysis, that you need a TSO'd GPS in the RV-10 if
> you want to legally fly a GPS approach. That is why I have designed my
> three screen GRT panel (Duel EFIS & Sport EFIS) around both an SL-30 and
> an IFR approved GNC 300XL. That way not only do I have a second Comm
> but I also have a TSO'd IFR GPS.
>
> Having said that, I am going with the WASS option on the GRT duel EFIS
> so even when I am legally flying the GPS approach on the GNC 300XL I
> have the WASS info displayed on the GRT EFIS.
>
> In addition I also have the ability to shoot an ILS on the SL-30 with
> the ILS displayed on the GRT EFIS.
>
>
>
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: Lighting question |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Jim,
See inline:
Tim
James Hein wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: James Hein <n8vim@arrl.net>
>
> Hi all,
> Well, the rudder is almost done and a few questions popped into my mind:
>
> 1. Where does the beacon go? (In the 152/172 it is at the top of the
> vertical stabilizer, but where do you put it in the RV-10?)
Most won't have a beacon. You'll use the 3-point strobe method, with
one in each wingtip, and one tail light/strobe combo on the lower part
of the rudder. Take a peek at your rudder fairing. Also, if you watch
Randy's in-flight video, you can see the strobe flashing sometimes.
> 2. What nav light package is everyone going with? I'd prefer LED
> lighting; Who makes LED nav lights for the RV-10? I'd prefer to get some
> soon so I have them when Ido the tail fairings.
Um, "everyone" isn't going with the same thing. <g> I'm sold on LED's
too, so I'm either going CreativeAir, or Perihelion Design LED Nav's.
Whelen also makes some, for those with piles of cash. As for the tail
fairing, you may just want to complete your aluminum structure, and
then move on to the wings. Then you have time to decide.
> 3. What strobe package does everyone prefer? (Just starting to think on
> the strobes now)
>
some have whelen's strobes, and some are going with the CreativeAir
strobes. Not sure if it's a major difference one way or the other,
except for some cash.
> Thanks!
>
> -Jim 40384
>
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: | Lighting question |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@hotmail.com>
>
>Hi all,
> Well, the rudder is almost done and a few questions popped into my
>mind:
>
>1. Where does the beacon go? (In the 152/172 it is at the top of the
>vertical stabilizer, but where do you put it in the RV-10?)
Beacon?? What beacon? Don't need no steenkin' beekin...
One tail strobe in the rudder bottom fairing or simple amber position lamp
will do. Put a beacon on top of the vert stab and get laughed at by all the
other RV kids on the block. ;)
>2. What nav light package is everyone going with? I'd prefer LED lighting;
>Who makes LED nav lights for the RV-10? I'd prefer to get some soon so I
>have them when Ido the tail fairings.
Creativair.com
They go in the wing tips, not the tail.
>3. What strobe package does everyone prefer? (Just starting to think on the
>strobes now)
Whelan (if you prefer certified, gold plated, mom approved and preferred by
8 out of 10 dentists) or Aeroflash if you want to save money and get the
same thing. I've also looked at strobesnmore.com as a viable source.
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
RV10 '51
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: | Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPSChelton Panels, Autopilots, |
and GPS
--> RV10-List message posted by: "James Ochs" <jochs@froody.org>
Man they make this crap confusing :P
My reading of the paragraph in the eaa document seems to mean that you can
use gps, but you have to be equipped with the other stuff as well. I think
it is just saying you can't consider the aircraft equipped for IFR
operations if you *only* have a gps as nav equipment(which I personally
wouldn't anyway) but doesn't imply that you can't use the GPS as primary
navigation. If my interpretation is right, then it obviates the next
paragraph ;)
The question that is popping up from all of these questions and
interpretations that are coming up on this issue is that if even a TSO'd gps
isn't considered good enough for primary navigation in a homebuilt, does
that mean you CANNOT fly a GPS/A or WAAS approach since the gps is your
primary / only source of navigation for that approach? That doesn't seem
right to me. Not that the regs tend to be logical, informed, or even smart,
but it seems stupid to me that you wouldn't be able to fly an approach with
something like a GNS480 when even my handheld will give me orders of
magnitude of precision over an ndb or vor approach.
They (the eaa paper) also seem to imply that there are type certified
aircraft that are exempt from 91.205(d)(2)... using and only equipped with
gps and legal for IFR. This doesn't seem right to me either. You would
then have a certificated airplane that can't get into a significant number
of airports that don't have gps approaches and if the gps failed... Are
there IFR legal type certified aircraft without a nav/comm? Does the person
who buys it then spend as much as we spent on the fuselage for our planes to
get a nav/comm. installed once he realizes that he cant get into 50% of the
airports <G>?
Anyway, hopefully someone will figure this out before I get to my panel !
James
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPSChelton Panels,
Autopilots, and GPS
You know, John did a great job with that...thanks John. But, I don't
agree as fully as you after getting the info that I've attached to
this email. It's an EAA paper on the subject of IFR Equipment in
a homebuilt. I also put it on my site at:
http://www.myrv10.com/files/guides/IFR_equipment.pdf
if you can't get it from this email.
I just got it from Direct to Avionics today. My take on it is
now that you will need to have a Nav/Com (preferrably with Glideslope
capability) in your homebuilt, no matter what you do, if you fly IFF
in a homebuilt. Because it won't be technically tru to consider
ANY GPS right now, Garmin 430/480/530 or other....to be legal for
anything other than a secondary NAV source. I agree that you will
NOT need to use equipment with a TSO. But, the catch is that you
have to document or demonstrate that it performs to the TSO's standard.
That is probably pretty tricky to do. The Chelton would absolutely
be easier than many, because it's running the SAME software as
it's TSO'd "Pro" line of equipment. If you go with something like
the GRT/BMA or anything else with an internal GPS, there's not even
a BASIS for you to go on if you want to try to show TSO equivalency.
But, how are you going to verify the TSO equivalency? I guess after
my initial fly off, I'll have to get the TSO specs, and then put it
back into Phase I for a while and try to do some thorough flight
testing and prove that it matches the TSO'd specs of the Pro unit...
if that's even possible. And, since we can't use the 430/530/480 as a
primary nav anyway, (in GPS use I mean), then our Nav receiver is an
important part of our panel.....that was the big eye opener. So,
people with a GNS480 in their panel shouldn't consider it as making
them legal because of the GPS....it's legal because of the NAV/GS
receiver.
So, what does this mean to us? It means that Russell is good, because
he has the SL-30 NAV/GS. It means that the GNC 300XL is not needed to
be TSO'd, because NONE of the GPS's will be his *legal* primary Nav
device. Same with my panel....I have the SL-30 for the "legal"
department, but the Chelton wouldn't have to be. Also, the SL-30
has a built in CDI (although not fancy), so you should be able to
do a VOR approach with it. I wouldn't agree that the CDI head has
to be installed, but, for doing an ILS it might be needed. (Can
someone who's flown a 430/530/480 tell me if any of these has an
internal display of a glideslope...or just a CDI?) Not that the
CDI head wouldn't be useful. I may decide to cut a hole for one
myself.
Also, regarding the WAAS approach, it's easy to see now why the
GNS480, or remote mount FreeFlight GPS would be "required" because
even the Chelton Pro's WAAS receiver isn't TSO'd for WAAS approaches
yet. Perhaps if the Pro was, the sport might be more suitable.
The thing is, given all of the above info (esp. the attachment),
perhaps the internal WAAS could well be just fine for the approach
without the GNS480/Freeflight....since we don't have to have
TSO'd equipment....the big catch is, how do we prove that our WAAS
receiver is equivalent to the TSO spec? That would be pretty hard to
do if the manufacturer hasn't done it on their pro model.
Funny how hard this all has to be, given that the EAA has an
interpretation, each person also has their interpretation, and
now I have to have my own interpretation of the EAA's paper.
The FAA surely doesn't spell things out with perfection regarding
homebuilts....although that might be to our benefit, as if they
did, it might be more restrictive than the way it is now.
So, for those who think TSO'd is the only way, I guess buying all
TSO'd equipment can't hurt.....but your panel's gonna cost some
big bucks if you insist on TSO'd stuff, and it's never going to be
cutting edge. For those who think no TSO'd stuff is required, it
looks like you should consider a good Nav/Com/GS receiver at least
that is TSO'd. Then there people like me....the middle grounders.
I think TSO'd would be best chosen if possible, but I'm starting to
see that perhaps the regs are as such that our homebuilts will NEVER
technically be equivalent in legal capability to a certified aircraft,
because even if we install TSO'd GPS equipment, we still can't rely
on it for primary nav using the GPS function....so perhaps a mix
of TSO'd and non-TSO'd is the realistic way to go.
Josh from Direct2Avionics did say that the WAAS stuff is pretty new
and that I might do well to contact the EAA myself directly again
to see how everything is currently interpreted by them. My guess is
that since the Feds are pushing GPS/WAAS so they can decommission their
VOR's and NDB approaches, we're likely to see some bending on the
GPS issues, and perhaps someday in the near future we'll be able
to use GPS for primary Nav.
For myself, some of this is starting to have an impact on my panel
again. While I think an SL-30/SL-40 combo would be fine, I played
with the GNS480 simulator yesterday a bit and was able to quickly
learn how to do the basic funtions without a manual. I couldn't
currently flight-plan in it, or set up an approach, but I'm more
comfortable now. So I am now leaning back towards a SL-30 as
Nav/Com 1, (to autotune with my chelton), and the GNS-480 as
Nav/Com 2....as my WAAS legal receiver, and backup Nav/GPS. I have
to find out if I can display Glideslope on it's screens, but if I
can, then I'm not putting in an external CDI.
Oh, and by the way....since the Chelton's are all independent
of eachother, when something says you need 3 of these, or 2 of those,
each screen can be counted separately. So, that CDI from the 480
could be displayed on my Chelton Screen #2, even if I lost my AHRS
and screen 1 completely. So this still leans me away from the
external CDI.
Wow, there's a lot to know. The panel is absolutely the most stressful
part of planning this airplane for me.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Russell Daves wrote:
> I agree with John's analysis, that you need a TSO'd GPS in the RV-10 if
> you want to legally fly a GPS approach. That is why I have designed my
> three screen GRT panel (Duel EFIS & Sport EFIS) around both an SL-30 and
> an IFR approved GNC 300XL. That way not only do I have a second Comm
> but I also have a TSO'd IFR GPS.
>
> Having said that, I am going with the WASS option on the GRT duel EFIS
> so even when I am legally flying the GPS approach on the GNC 300XL I
> have the WASS info displayed on the GRT EFIS.
>
> In addition I also have the ability to shoot an ILS on the SL-30 with
> the ILS displayed on the GRT EFIS.
>
>
>
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: RV10: Regarding Whirlwind Composite group buy |
Hi Jerry,
I'm afraid this may be a little brutal.
IMHO, I would NOT put ANY composite propeller on a 4 cylinder 4 cycle engine
unless the propeller manufacturer has done a valid vibration survey.
From what I have read from the people flying the Whirlwind propeller, I
would guess that this hasn't been done.
IMHO, if a 3 blade propeller is used in place of a 2 blade propelller and
there is not a very noticable difference in vibration, then there is something
VERY BAD happening with that 3 blade propeller.
A 2 blade propeller has a 2nd order harmonic that does not occur with a 3
blade propeller. The 3 blade vibration level is VERY noticably LOWER than with
the 2 blade propeller.
And you don't need "no stinking instruments" to tell the difference. :-)
"Stinking instrumentation" is required to determine what is happening along
the blade.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 05/29/2005 12:02:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rv10-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
Time: 09:38:39 AM PST US
From: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 MT Propeller group buy
Hi Jim ...
Would you ever consider sponsoring a group buy effort for Whirlwind
composite three
blade for the Lyc 320/360 RV builders?
Thanks ...
Jerry Grimmonpre
RV7A shop building
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: | QB Fuse - Hinges |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
This missing parts thing really irritates me...
In my QB Fuse I have one length of AN257-P3 that is 3' long.
I also have 9' of 1/8 Piano Hinge.
The QB fuse came with the bottom half of the rear seat hinges
temporarily riveted in place. There were no top halves of the
hinge. The 3' piece supplied is about the perfect length if
I cut it in half, and throw away half of the hinge.
But, now I have my baggage door. It specifies the AN257-P3
hinge. It doesn't require all 3' of it. Makes me suspicious
because Van's usually doesn't give you much excess, and 3' would
be excess.
I then look ahead regarding the piano hinge at 9', for the cowl
stuff. There is only enough for the cowl job there. Besides
that, it says in Van's guide to hinges here:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/Hinge_id.pdf
that on all 1/8" piano hinge, the pin is to be removed and discarded,
and they supply a different pin. I don't have any different pin.
What the heck is going on with all that? From the looks of it,
I was shorted my rear seat hinge halves. But, they supplied enough
with that 3' hinge to do it. In that case, I was shorted my baggage
door hinge. As far as the 9' hinge pin, I do see that my
finishing kit includes:
AN257-P3 6'
Hinge Piano 063x3' Leg fairing hinge
Hinge Piano 063x6' 063 piano hinge
SSP-090x6' Stainless Steel Pin
SSP-120x6' Stainless Steel Pin
I don't see that I have 9' of hinge pin in the Finishing Kit.
What am I missing here? It really bugs me that I have to waste
an hour of time flipping back and forth in the plans, skimming through
the inventory, and measuring everything....only to have it turn out
that it sure looks like I was shorted a baggage door hinge, or my
rear seat hinge halves. I just GOT a care package with some bolts I
needed that I was shorted.
Anyone with a QB fuse who's further than me, I'd love your help in
figuring out what's going on. It WAS going to be a productive day
today...hope it still will be.
Tim
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPSChelton Panels, Autopilots, |
and GPS
Just look at the aim book under GPS and it tells you all this, about the use of
GPS and having to have a approved and operational alternate means of navigation
appropriate to the flight.
This is a book everyone is suppose to have or at least read.
Pat
Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
You know, John did a great job with that...thanks John. But, I don't
agree as fully as you after getting the info that I've attached to
this email. It's an EAA paper on the subject of IFR Equipment in
a homebuilt. I also put it on my site at:
http://www.myrv10.com/files/guides/IFR_equipment.pdf
if you can't get it from this email.
I just got it from Direct to Avionics today. My take on it is
now that you will need to have a Nav/Com (preferrably with Glideslope
capability) in your homebuilt, no matter what you do, if you fly IFF
in a homebuilt. Because it won't be technically tru to consider
ANY GPS right now, Garmin 430/480/530 or other....to be legal for
anything other than a secondary NAV source. I agree that you will
NOT need to use equipment with a TSO. But, the catch is that you
have to document or demonstrate that it performs to the TSO's standard.
That is probably pretty tricky to do. The Chelton would absolutely
be easier than many, because it's running the SAME software as
it's TSO'd "Pro" line of equipment. If you go with something like
the GRT/BMA or anything else with an internal GPS, there's not even
a BASIS for you to go on if you want to try to show TSO equivalency.
But, how are you going to verify the TSO equivalency? I guess after
my initial fly off, I'll have to get the TSO specs, and then put it
back into Phase I for a while and try to do some thorough flight
testing and prove that it matches the TSO'd specs of the Pro unit...
if that's even possible. And, since we can't use the 430/530/480 as a
primary nav anyway, (in GPS use I mean), then our Nav receiver is an
important part of our panel.....that was the big eye opener. So,
people with a GNS480 in their panel shouldn't consider it as making
them legal because of the GPS....it's legal because of the NAV/GS
receiver.
So, what does this mean to us? It means that Russell is good, because
he has the SL-30 NAV/GS. It means that the GNC 300XL is not needed to
be TSO'd, because NONE of the GPS's will be his *legal* primary Nav
device. Same with my panel....I have the SL-30 for the "legal"
department, but the Chelton wouldn't have to be. Also, the SL-30
has a built in CDI (although not fancy), so you should be able to
do a VOR approach with it. I wouldn't agree that the CDI head has
to be installed, but, for doing an ILS it might be needed. (Can
someone who's flown a 430/530/480 tell me if any of these has an
internal display of a glideslope...or just a CDI?) Not that the
CDI head wouldn't be useful. I may decide to cut a hole for one
myself.
Also, regarding the WAAS approach, it's easy to see now why the
GNS480, or remote mount FreeFlight GPS would be "required" because
even the Chelton Pro's WAAS receiver isn't TSO'd for WAAS approaches
yet. Perhaps if the Pro was, the sport might be more suitable.
The thing is, given all of the above info (esp. the attachment),
perhaps the internal WAAS could well be just fine for the approach
without the GNS480/Freeflight....since we don't have to have
TSO'd equipment....the big catch is, how do we prove that our WAAS
receiver is equivalent to the TSO spec? That would be pretty hard to
do if the manufacturer hasn't done it on their pro model.
Funny how hard this all has to be, given that the EAA has an
interpretation, each person also has their interpretation, and
now I have to have my own interpretation of the EAA's paper.
The FAA surely doesn't spell things out with perfection regarding
homebuilts....although that might be to our benefit, as if they
did, it might be more restrictive than the way it is now.
So, for those who think TSO'd is the only way, I guess buying all
TSO'd equipment can't hurt.....but your panel's gonna cost some
big bucks if you insist on TSO'd stuff, and it's never going to be
cutting edge. For those who think no TSO'd stuff is required, it
looks like you should consider a good Nav/Com/GS receiver at least
that is TSO'd. Then there people like me....the middle grounders.
I think TSO'd would be best chosen if possible, but I'm starting to
see that perhaps the regs are as such that our homebuilts will NEVER
technically be equivalent in legal capability to a certified aircraft,
because even if we install TSO'd GPS equipment, we still can't rely
on it for primary nav using the GPS function....so perhaps a mix
of TSO'd and non-TSO'd is the realistic way to go.
Josh from Direct2Avionics did say that the WAAS stuff is pretty new
and that I might do well to contact the EAA myself directly again
to see how everything is currently interpreted by them. My guess is
that since the Feds are pushing GPS/WAAS so they can decommission their
VOR's and NDB approaches, we're likely to see some bending on the
GPS issues, and perhaps someday in the near future we'll be able
to use GPS for primary Nav.
For myself, some of this is starting to have an impact on my panel
again. While I think an SL-30/SL-40 combo would be fine, I played
with the GNS480 simulator yesterday a bit and was able to quickly
learn how to do the basic funtions without a manual. I couldn't
currently flight-plan in it, or set up an approach, but I'm more
comfortable now. So I am now leaning back towards a SL-30 as
Nav/Com 1, (to autotune with my chelton), and the GNS-480 as
Nav/Com 2....as my WAAS legal receiver, and backup Nav/GPS. I have
to find out if I can display Glideslope on it's screens, but if I
can, then I'm not putting in an external CDI.
Oh, and by the way....since the Chelton's are all independent
of eachother, when something says you need 3 of these, or 2 of those,
each screen can be counted separately. So, that CDI from the 480
could be displayed on my Chelton Screen #2, even if I lost my AHRS
and screen 1 completely. So this still leans me away from the
external CDI.
Wow, there's a lot to know. The panel is absolutely the most stressful
part of planning this airplane for me.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Russell Daves wrote:
> I agree with John's analysis, that you need a TSO'd GPS in the RV-10 if
> you want to legally fly a GPS approach. That is why I have designed my
> three screen GRT panel (Duel EFIS & Sport EFIS) around both an SL-30 and
> an IFR approved GNC 300XL. That way not only do I have a second Comm
> but I also have a TSO'd IFR GPS.
>
> Having said that, I am going with the WASS option on the GRT duel EFIS
> so even when I am legally flying the GPS approach on the GNC 300XL I
> have the WASS info displayed on the GRT EFIS.
>
> In addition I also have the ability to shoot an ILS on the SL-30 with
> the ILS displayed on the GRT EFIS.
>
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: QB Fuse - Hinges |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "DejaVu" <wvu@mail.ameritel.net>
Tim,
I struggled similarly with AL angles and such. If you have some long ones
and some short ones and they tell you to cut a piece, which one do you cut
out of? I have found it to be more effective to ensure your inventory is
correct and just truck ahead. I have came short of some items. Some were
not even in the inventory. I found some fittings called out in the FWF
instructions but not inventory. They don't hold you to the 30days for
things such as these. Hopefully it'll all work out in the end.
Anh
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Subject: RV10-List: QB Fuse - Hinges
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
>
> This missing parts thing really irritates me...
>
> In my QB Fuse I have one length of AN257-P3 that is 3' long.
> I also have 9' of 1/8 Piano Hinge.
> The QB fuse came with the bottom half of the rear seat hinges
> temporarily riveted in place. There were no top halves of the
> hinge. The 3' piece supplied is about the perfect length if
> I cut it in half, and throw away half of the hinge.
>
> But, now I have my baggage door. It specifies the AN257-P3
> hinge. It doesn't require all 3' of it. Makes me suspicious
> because Van's usually doesn't give you much excess, and 3' would
> be excess.
>
> I then look ahead regarding the piano hinge at 9', for the cowl
> stuff. There is only enough for the cowl job there. Besides
> that, it says in Van's guide to hinges here:
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/Hinge_id.pdf
> that on all 1/8" piano hinge, the pin is to be removed and discarded,
> and they supply a different pin. I don't have any different pin.
>
> What the heck is going on with all that? From the looks of it,
> I was shorted my rear seat hinge halves. But, they supplied enough
> with that 3' hinge to do it. In that case, I was shorted my baggage
> door hinge. As far as the 9' hinge pin, I do see that my
> finishing kit includes:
> AN257-P3 6'
> Hinge Piano 063x3' Leg fairing hinge
> Hinge Piano 063x6' 063 piano hinge
> SSP-090x6' Stainless Steel Pin
> SSP-120x6' Stainless Steel Pin
>
> I don't see that I have 9' of hinge pin in the Finishing Kit.
>
> What am I missing here? It really bugs me that I have to waste
> an hour of time flipping back and forth in the plans, skimming through
> the inventory, and measuring everything....only to have it turn out
> that it sure looks like I was shorted a baggage door hinge, or my
> rear seat hinge halves. I just GOT a care package with some bolts I
> needed that I was shorted.
>
> Anyone with a QB fuse who's further than me, I'd love your help in
> figuring out what's going on. It WAS going to be a productive day
> today...hope it still will be.
>
> Tim
>
> --
> Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
> Current project: Fuselage
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> ---
>
>
---
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: | Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPSChelton Panels, Autopilots, |
and GPS
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter@grandecom.net>
I'm not sure I have the answer either but my understanding is that if you
have an IFR cert GPS you can legally fly with it as the primary instrument,
but you have to have the backup up gauges or equipment in case the GPS, your
primary source, were to fail during the IFR portion of your flight. I
believe if you had another IFR certified GPS that could serve as a backup.
You can legally shoot the approach's with an approach cert unit but need the
backup just in case of a failure. I believe I will probably use the Garmin
430 or 480 as my primary source and have the Garmin SL30 and have a remote
ILS head as my backup. It's possible I will use another GPS, but at this
point I'm leaning towards a remote head.
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Ochs" <jochs@froody.org>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPSChelton Panels,
Autopilots, and GPS
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "James Ochs" <jochs@froody.org>
>
> Man they make this crap confusing :P
>
> My reading of the paragraph in the eaa document seems to mean that you can
> use gps, but you have to be equipped with the other stuff as well. I
> think
> it is just saying you can't consider the aircraft equipped for IFR
> operations if you *only* have a gps as nav equipment(which I personally
> wouldn't anyway) but doesn't imply that you can't use the GPS as primary
> navigation. If my interpretation is right, then it obviates the next
> paragraph ;)
>
> The question that is popping up from all of these questions and
> interpretations that are coming up on this issue is that if even a TSO'd
> gps
> isn't considered good enough for primary navigation in a homebuilt, does
> that mean you CANNOT fly a GPS/A or WAAS approach since the gps is your
> primary / only source of navigation for that approach? That doesn't seem
> right to me. Not that the regs tend to be logical, informed, or even
> smart,
> but it seems stupid to me that you wouldn't be able to fly an approach
> with
> something like a GNS480 when even my handheld will give me orders of
> magnitude of precision over an ndb or vor approach.
>
> They (the eaa paper) also seem to imply that there are type certified
> aircraft that are exempt from 91.205(d)(2)... using and only equipped with
> gps and legal for IFR. This doesn't seem right to me either. You would
> then have a certificated airplane that can't get into a significant number
> of airports that don't have gps approaches and if the gps failed... Are
> there IFR legal type certified aircraft without a nav/comm? Does the
> person
> who buys it then spend as much as we spent on the fuselage for our planes
> to
> get a nav/comm. installed once he realizes that he cant get into 50% of
> the
> airports <G>?
>
> Anyway, hopefully someone will figure this out before I get to my panel !
>
> James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 7:36 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPSChelton Panels,
> Autopilots, and GPS
>
> You know, John did a great job with that...thanks John. But, I don't
> agree as fully as you after getting the info that I've attached to
> this email. It's an EAA paper on the subject of IFR Equipment in
> a homebuilt. I also put it on my site at:
>
> http://www.myrv10.com/files/guides/IFR_equipment.pdf
> if you can't get it from this email.
>
> I just got it from Direct to Avionics today. My take on it is
> now that you will need to have a Nav/Com (preferrably with Glideslope
> capability) in your homebuilt, no matter what you do, if you fly IFF
> in a homebuilt. Because it won't be technically tru to consider
> ANY GPS right now, Garmin 430/480/530 or other....to be legal for
> anything other than a secondary NAV source. I agree that you will
> NOT need to use equipment with a TSO. But, the catch is that you
> have to document or demonstrate that it performs to the TSO's standard.
> That is probably pretty tricky to do. The Chelton would absolutely
> be easier than many, because it's running the SAME software as
> it's TSO'd "Pro" line of equipment. If you go with something like
> the GRT/BMA or anything else with an internal GPS, there's not even
> a BASIS for you to go on if you want to try to show TSO equivalency.
> But, how are you going to verify the TSO equivalency? I guess after
> my initial fly off, I'll have to get the TSO specs, and then put it
> back into Phase I for a while and try to do some thorough flight
> testing and prove that it matches the TSO'd specs of the Pro unit...
> if that's even possible. And, since we can't use the 430/530/480 as a
> primary nav anyway, (in GPS use I mean), then our Nav receiver is an
> important part of our panel.....that was the big eye opener. So,
> people with a GNS480 in their panel shouldn't consider it as making
> them legal because of the GPS....it's legal because of the NAV/GS
> receiver.
>
> So, what does this mean to us? It means that Russell is good, because
> he has the SL-30 NAV/GS. It means that the GNC 300XL is not needed to
> be TSO'd, because NONE of the GPS's will be his *legal* primary Nav
> device. Same with my panel....I have the SL-30 for the "legal"
> department, but the Chelton wouldn't have to be. Also, the SL-30
> has a built in CDI (although not fancy), so you should be able to
> do a VOR approach with it. I wouldn't agree that the CDI head has
> to be installed, but, for doing an ILS it might be needed. (Can
> someone who's flown a 430/530/480 tell me if any of these has an
> internal display of a glideslope...or just a CDI?) Not that the
> CDI head wouldn't be useful. I may decide to cut a hole for one
> myself.
>
> Also, regarding the WAAS approach, it's easy to see now why the
> GNS480, or remote mount FreeFlight GPS would be "required" because
> even the Chelton Pro's WAAS receiver isn't TSO'd for WAAS approaches
> yet. Perhaps if the Pro was, the sport might be more suitable.
> The thing is, given all of the above info (esp. the attachment),
> perhaps the internal WAAS could well be just fine for the approach
> without the GNS480/Freeflight....since we don't have to have
> TSO'd equipment....the big catch is, how do we prove that our WAAS
> receiver is equivalent to the TSO spec? That would be pretty hard to
> do if the manufacturer hasn't done it on their pro model.
>
> Funny how hard this all has to be, given that the EAA has an
> interpretation, each person also has their interpretation, and
> now I have to have my own interpretation of the EAA's paper.
> The FAA surely doesn't spell things out with perfection regarding
> homebuilts....although that might be to our benefit, as if they
> did, it might be more restrictive than the way it is now.
>
> So, for those who think TSO'd is the only way, I guess buying all
> TSO'd equipment can't hurt.....but your panel's gonna cost some
> big bucks if you insist on TSO'd stuff, and it's never going to be
> cutting edge. For those who think no TSO'd stuff is required, it
> looks like you should consider a good Nav/Com/GS receiver at least
> that is TSO'd. Then there people like me....the middle grounders.
> I think TSO'd would be best chosen if possible, but I'm starting to
> see that perhaps the regs are as such that our homebuilts will NEVER
> technically be equivalent in legal capability to a certified aircraft,
> because even if we install TSO'd GPS equipment, we still can't rely
> on it for primary nav using the GPS function....so perhaps a mix
> of TSO'd and non-TSO'd is the realistic way to go.
>
> Josh from Direct2Avionics did say that the WAAS stuff is pretty new
> and that I might do well to contact the EAA myself directly again
> to see how everything is currently interpreted by them. My guess is
> that since the Feds are pushing GPS/WAAS so they can decommission their
> VOR's and NDB approaches, we're likely to see some bending on the
> GPS issues, and perhaps someday in the near future we'll be able
> to use GPS for primary Nav.
>
> For myself, some of this is starting to have an impact on my panel
> again. While I think an SL-30/SL-40 combo would be fine, I played
> with the GNS480 simulator yesterday a bit and was able to quickly
> learn how to do the basic funtions without a manual. I couldn't
> currently flight-plan in it, or set up an approach, but I'm more
> comfortable now. So I am now leaning back towards a SL-30 as
> Nav/Com 1, (to autotune with my chelton), and the GNS-480 as
> Nav/Com 2....as my WAAS legal receiver, and backup Nav/GPS. I have
> to find out if I can display Glideslope on it's screens, but if I
> can, then I'm not putting in an external CDI.
>
> Oh, and by the way....since the Chelton's are all independent
> of eachother, when something says you need 3 of these, or 2 of those,
> each screen can be counted separately. So, that CDI from the 480
> could be displayed on my Chelton Screen #2, even if I lost my AHRS
> and screen 1 completely. So this still leans me away from the
> external CDI.
>
>
> Wow, there's a lot to know. The panel is absolutely the most stressful
> part of planning this airplane for me.
>
>
> Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
>
>
> Russell Daves wrote:
>> I agree with John's analysis, that you need a TSO'd GPS in the RV-10 if
>> you want to legally fly a GPS approach. That is why I have designed my
>> three screen GRT panel (Duel EFIS & Sport EFIS) around both an SL-30 and
>> an IFR approved GNC 300XL. That way not only do I have a second Comm
>> but I also have a TSO'd IFR GPS.
>>
>> Having said that, I am going with the WASS option on the GRT duel EFIS
>> so even when I am legally flying the GPS approach on the GNC 300XL I
>> have the WASS info displayed on the GRT EFIS.
>>
>> In addition I also have the ability to shoot an ILS on the SL-30 with
>> the ILS displayed on the GRT EFIS.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 4 Days Missing |
B079D020A050C0A9DBDBD@att.net>
--> RV10-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Ah, interesting... Actually the days weren't "missing", it was just that
last Tuesday the previous week's messages for Tuesday weren't removed from
the 7-day queue. What you were seeing was messages from May 17, then
messages from May 24. This was caused by the email system hang on cusp of
May 23-24. The program that does the purging runs from a crontab job and
since the system had just crashed, it didn't get run. Next Tuesday May 31,
everything would have gotten back to normal, but I went ahead and cleaned
up the 7-day queues by hand this morning - 53 of them! The List 7-Day
Browse now correctly contains 7 days spanning May 23 through May 29.
Thanks for the heads up on that!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
At 08:18 PM 5/28/2005 Saturday, you wrote:
>--> RV10-List message posted by: BBreckenridge@att.net
>
>Maybe it's just a glitch in my region of space warp, but we seem to be
>missing May 18, 19, 20 & 21 in the archives. Ok, who's got
>'em? Matt? Mr. Dralle?
>
>
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
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: | priming and flush riveting |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
I'm curious about the effect of priming on flush rivets.
Will the extra layer of
material (primer) in the flush rivet hole be enough
to raise the rivet up appreciably? In other words,
do I want to prime the insides of the rivet holes?
Thanks,
-Dj
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: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPSChelton Panels, Autopilots, |
and GPS
Tim,
The 480 has a vertical indicator that shows up on certain approaches in the display, I know it does this for GPS approaches, so I'm sure it does the same for the ILS. Here is a link http://www.garmin.com/specs/GNS480_0704.pdf with a picture.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Olson
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPSChelton Panels, Autopilots,
and GPS
You know, John did a great job with that...thanks John. But, I don't
agree as fully as you after getting the info that I've attached to
this email. It's an EAA paper on the subject of IFR Equipment in
a homebuilt. I also put it on my site at:
http://www.myrv10.com/files/guides/IFR_equipment.pdf
if you can't get it from this email.
I just got it from Direct to Avionics today. My take on it is
now that you will need to have a Nav/Com (preferrably with Glideslope
capability) in your homebuilt, no matter what you do, if you fly IFF
in a homebuilt. Because it won't be technically tru to consider
ANY GPS right now, Garmin 430/480/530 or other....to be legal for
anything other than a secondary NAV source. I agree that you will
NOT need to use equipment with a TSO. But, the catch is that you
have to document or demonstrate that it performs to the TSO's standard.
That is probably pretty tricky to do. The Chelton would absolutely
be easier than many, because it's running the SAME software as
it's TSO'd "Pro" line of equipment. If you go with something like
the GRT/BMA or anything else with an internal GPS, there's not even
a BASIS for you to go on if you want to try to show TSO equivalency.
But, how are you going to verify the TSO equivalency? I guess after
my initial fly off, I'll have to get the TSO specs, and then put it
back into Phase I for a while and try to do some thorough flight
testing and prove that it matches the TSO'd specs of the Pro unit...
if that's even possible. And, since we can't use the 430/530/480 as a
primary nav anyway, (in GPS use I mean), then our Nav receiver is an
important part of our panel.....that was the big eye opener. So,
people with a GNS480 in their panel shouldn't consider it as making
them legal because of the GPS....it's legal because of the NAV/GS
receiver.
So, what does this mean to us? It means that Russell is good, because
he has the SL-30 NAV/GS. It means that the GNC 300XL is not needed to
be TSO'd, because NONE of the GPS's will be his *legal* primary Nav
device. Same with my panel....I have the SL-30 for the "legal"
department, but the Chelton wouldn't have to be. Also, the SL-30
has a built in CDI (although not fancy), so you should be able to
do a VOR approach with it. I wouldn't agree that the CDI head has
to be installed, but, for doing an ILS it might be needed. (Can
someone who's flown a 430/530/480 tell me if any of these has an
internal display of a glideslope...or just a CDI?) Not that the
CDI head wouldn't be useful. I may decide to cut a hole for one
myself.
Also, regarding the WAAS approach, it's easy to see now why the
GNS480, or remote mount FreeFlight GPS would be "required" because
even the Chelton Pro's WAAS receiver isn't TSO'd for WAAS approaches
yet. Perhaps if the Pro was, the sport might be more suitable.
The thing is, given all of the above info (esp. the attachment),
perhaps the internal WAAS could well be just fine for the approach
without the GNS480/Freeflight....since we don't have to have
TSO'd equipment....the big catch is, how do we prove that our WAAS
receiver is equivalent to the TSO spec? That would be pretty hard to
do if the manufacturer hasn't done it on their pro model.
Funny how hard this all has to be, given that the EAA has an
interpretation, each person also has their interpretation, and
now I have to have my own interpretation of the EAA's paper.
The FAA surely doesn't spell things out with perfection regarding
homebuilts....although that might be to our benefit, as if they
did, it might be more restrictive than the way it is now.
So, for those who think TSO'd is the only way, I guess buying all
TSO'd equipment can't hurt.....but your panel's gonna cost some
big bucks if you insist on TSO'd stuff, and it's never going to be
cutting edge. For those who think no TSO'd stuff is required, it
looks like you should consider a good Nav/Com/GS receiver at least
that is TSO'd. Then there people like me....the middle grounders.
I think TSO'd would be best chosen if possible, but I'm starting to
see that perhaps the regs are as such that our homebuilts will NEVER
technically be equivalent in legal capability to a certified aircraft,
because even if we install TSO'd GPS equipment, we still can't rely
on it for primary nav using the GPS function....so perhaps a mix
of TSO'd and non-TSO'd is the realistic way to go.
Josh from Direct2Avionics did say that the WAAS stuff is pretty new
and that I might do well to contact the EAA myself directly again
to see how everything is currently interpreted by them. My guess is
that since the Feds are pushing GPS/WAAS so they can decommission their
VOR's and NDB approaches, we're likely to see some bending on the
GPS issues, and perhaps someday in the near future we'll be able
to use GPS for primary Nav.
For myself, some of this is starting to have an impact on my panel
again. While I think an SL-30/SL-40 combo would be fine, I played
with the GNS480 simulator yesterday a bit and was able to quickly
learn how to do the basic funtions without a manual. I couldn't
currently flight-plan in it, or set up an approach, but I'm more
comfortable now. So I am now leaning back towards a SL-30 as
Nav/Com 1, (to autotune with my chelton), and the GNS-480 as
Nav/Com 2....as my WAAS legal receiver, and backup Nav/GPS. I have
to find out if I can display Glideslope on it's screens, but if I
can, then I'm not putting in an external CDI.
Oh, and by the way....since the Chelton's are all independent
of eachother, when something says you need 3 of these, or 2 of those,
each screen can be counted separately. So, that CDI from the 480
could be displayed on my Chelton Screen #2, even if I lost my AHRS
and screen 1 completely. So this still leans me away from the
external CDI.
Wow, there's a lot to know. The panel is absolutely the most stressful
part of planning this airplane for me.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Russell Daves wrote:
> I agree with John's analysis, that you need a TSO'd GPS in the RV-10 if
> you want to legally fly a GPS approach. That is why I have designed my
> three screen GRT panel (Duel EFIS & Sport EFIS) around both an SL-30 and
> an IFR approved GNC 300XL. That way not only do I have a second Comm
> but I also have a TSO'd IFR GPS.
>
> Having said that, I am going with the WASS option on the GRT duel EFIS
> so even when I am legally flying the GPS approach on the GNC 300XL I
> have the WASS info displayed on the GRT EFIS.
>
> In addition I also have the ability to shoot an ILS on the SL-30 with
> the ILS displayed on the GRT EFIS.
>
>
>
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: | Re: priming and flush riveting |
--> RV10-List message posted by: <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Dj,
I have never seen primer affect the height of a rivet, Proseal maybe, I used
tanks dimple dies from Cleavland tools to eliminate that issue while
building the tanks. I have had primer in the dimples and it didn't affect
the height of the rivet. Primer thickness is measured in mils, compared to
thousands...you have a greater risk of not setting the dimple die square
than having primer cause the manuf. head to seat higher than the skin.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dj Merrill" <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Subject: RV10-List: priming and flush riveting
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
>
> I'm curious about the effect of priming on flush rivets.
> Will the extra layer of
> material (primer) in the flush rivet hole be enough
> to raise the rivet up appreciably? In other words,
> do I want to prime the insides of the rivet holes?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Dj
>
>
>
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: | priming and flush riveting |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
DJ,
As Rick indicates below, no problem with dimpled holes. If the holes are
machine countersunk, primer in the hole can make the rivet sit a tad higher.
I just give the countersunk hole a bit of a twiddle with the deburring tool
to remove the primer or other crap that may have accumulated. Rivets set in
countersunk holes will be close to 'gas tight', so there will be little
opportunity for moisture ingress. I wouldn't bother priming inside the
holes.
Ron
#40187
Wings
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
ricksked@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: RV10-List: priming and flush riveting
--> RV10-List message posted by: <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Dj,
I have never seen primer affect the height of a rivet, Proseal maybe, I used
tanks dimple dies from Cleavland tools to eliminate that issue while
building the tanks. I have had primer in the dimples and it didn't affect
the height of the rivet. Primer thickness is measured in mils, compared to
thousands...you have a greater risk of not setting the dimple die square
than having primer cause the manuf. head to seat higher than the skin.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dj Merrill" <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Subject: RV10-List: priming and flush riveting
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
>
> I'm curious about the effect of priming on flush rivets.
> Will the extra layer of
> material (primer) in the flush rivet hole be enough
> to raise the rivet up appreciably? In other words,
> do I want to prime the insides of the rivet holes?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Dj
>
>
>
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 |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=YZnz89LK51IetYcnIyoiEYBH6Vo/poe690sSSo4EOUH+ircFLcmht3Ifm34CQgL6Xz7uzsEN8QpnyFfLyf5rDRqOtMtoqH/QZlkF2V55B+2mJvWZfSXROEdbgp6hXwYl4vD05R1CyYxBuMEkeqNIVEI3gKkQU2OLDS+pkk2nH74=
;
| Subject: | Re: priming and flush riveting |
Yes the primer raises the rivet the film thickness of the primer. Unless you are
very good and can prime only the inside of the rivet dimples, the film thickness
is the same on the skin. Hence, no change.
Bruce Patton
Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu> wrote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: Dj Merrill
I'm curious about the effect of priming on flush rivets.
Will the extra layer of
material (primer) in the flush rivet hole be enough
to raise the rivet up appreciably? In other words,
do I want to prime the insides of the rivet holes?
Thanks,
-Dj
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: | Tank skin to baffle rivet question |
Hope I didn't miss this somewhere in the archives, but here goes. On the
bottom of the fuel tank skins where they rivet to the tank baffle, there
are 3 holes really close together in about the center of the rivet line.
There is no callout for the center of these three rivets and I can't
find anywhere in the plans here or later that reference this hole.
Anyone have a clue what it's for and what to do with it?
John
#40208 Wings
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tank skin to baffle rivet question |
John,
It's been a while but if I remember correctly, those 3 holes are used to orient
the baffle itself. You should find the same holes on one flange of the baffle
and not the other flange.
Anh
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: Droopy Erickson
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 11:01 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Tank skin to baffle rivet question
Hope I didn't miss this somewhere in the archives, but here goes. On the bottom
of the fuel tank skins where they rivet to the tank baffle, there are 3 holes
really close together in about the center of the rivet line. There is no callout
for the center of these three rivets and I can't find anywhere in the plans
here or later that reference this hole. Anyone have a clue what it's for and
what to do with it?
John
#40208 Wings
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: priming and flush riveting |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Brcue Patton wrote:
> Yes the primer raises the rivet the film thickness of the primer.
> Unless you are very good and can prime only the inside of the rivet
> dimples, the film thickness is the same on the skin. Hence, no change.
>
Heh heh - good point! I hadn't thought of that. :-)
Thanks for the help guys,
-Dj
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: | Garmin 480 glideslope |
Tim: The April issue of Flying magazine has an article by Tom Benenson showing
an "advisory vertical guidance" (ie glideslope) as well as an HSI indication
which is on a new NAV page, with a version 2 software release. Sure looks like
it works the same as an external CDI.......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: Tank skin to baffle rivet question |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
John, Anh's right...it's just so you know which way is up. I just threw
a rivet in mine like the others, I think. If you dimpled it, rivet it.
If not, it's probably fine to leave it empty.
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
do not archive
DejaVu wrote:
> John,
> It's been a while but if I remember correctly, those 3 holes are used to
> orient the baffle itself. You should find the same holes on one flange
> of the baffle and not the other flange.
> Anh
> #141
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Droopy Erickson <mailto:Droopy@ericksonjc.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 29, 2005 11:01 PM
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Tank skin to baffle rivet question
>
> Hope I didn't miss this somewhere in the archives, but here goes. On
> the bottom of the fuel tank skins where they rivet to the tank
> baffle, there are 3 holes really close together in about the center
> of the rivet line. There is no callout for the center of these three
> rivets and I can't find anywhere in the plans here or later that
> reference this hole. Anyone have a clue what it's for and what to do
> with it?
>
> John
> #40208 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: Garmin 480 glideslope |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Thanks both Rick and Mark,
Now I feel comfortable just skipping the external CDI. The one on the
480 would be a backup anyway. I'll try to verify with Garmin that it
doesn't just display GPS, but will also display the actual ILS
glideslope, but it's nice to know it's there.
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Rick Lark wrote:
> Tim: The April issue of Flying magazine has an article by Tom Benenson
> showing an "advisory vertical guidance" (ie glideslope) as well as an
> HSI indication which is on a new NAV page, with a version 2 software
> release. Sure looks like it works the same as an external CDI.......Rick
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: | Tank skin to baffle rivet question |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Droopy Erickson" <Droopy@ericksonjc.com>
Thanks guys. I'll just countersink it like the rest and fill it...
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tank skin to baffle rivet question
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
John, Anh's right...it's just so you know which way is up. I just threw
a rivet in mine like the others, I think. If you dimpled it, rivet it.
If not, it's probably fine to leave it empty.
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
do not archive
DejaVu wrote:
> John,
> It's been a while but if I remember correctly, those 3 holes are used
> to orient the baffle itself. You should find the same holes on one
> flange of the baffle and not the other flange.
> Anh
> #141
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Droopy Erickson <mailto:Droopy@ericksonjc.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 29, 2005 11:01 PM
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Tank skin to baffle rivet question
>
> Hope I didn't miss this somewhere in the archives, but here goes.
On
> the bottom of the fuel tank skins where they rivet to the tank
> baffle, there are 3 holes really close together in about the
center
> of the rivet line. There is no callout for the center of these
three
> rivets and I can't find anywhere in the plans here or later that
> reference this hole. Anyone have a clue what it's for and what to
do
> with it?
>
> John
> #40208 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: | Tank skin to baffle rivet question |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
One question that a friend of mine raised, which I couldn't answer, has to
do with a slight variation of this. She wondered whether or not the
primer's ability to provide its protection is compromised by the rivet.
That is, when a rivet is seated, does the primer around the rivet head
"break," thus creating a, I would imagine, microscopic weak point where
moisture could invade. This came up in my, seemingly, never ending
discussion about which primer approach to use. The question about epoxy
raising the rivet head, and/or the rivet head "cracking" the primer were two
questions lacking an answer.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Droopy Erickson
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Tank skin to baffle rivet question
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Droopy Erickson"
--> <Droopy@ericksonjc.com>
Thanks guys. I'll just countersink it like the rest and fill it...
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tank skin to baffle rivet question
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
John, Anh's right...it's just so you know which way is up. I just threw a
rivet in mine like the others, I think. If you dimpled it, rivet it.
If not, it's probably fine to leave it empty.
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
do not archive
DejaVu wrote:
> John,
> It's been a while but if I remember correctly, those 3 holes are used
> to orient the baffle itself. You should find the same holes on one
> flange of the baffle and not the other flange.
> Anh
> #141
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Droopy Erickson <mailto:Droopy@ericksonjc.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 29, 2005 11:01 PM
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Tank skin to baffle rivet question
>
> Hope I didn't miss this somewhere in the archives, but here goes.
On
> the bottom of the fuel tank skins where they rivet to the tank
> baffle, there are 3 holes really close together in about the
center
> of the rivet line. There is no callout for the center of these
three
> rivets and I can't find anywhere in the plans here or later that
> reference this hole. Anyone have a clue what it's for and what to
do
> with it?
>
> John
> #40208 Wings
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|