Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:09 AM - Rattle can mystery (John Jessen)
2. 04:38 AM - Re: QB fuselage (Marcus Cooper)
3. 04:42 AM - N Number Fonts (Jim Combs)
4. 05:47 AM - Re: N Number Fonts (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
5. 06:06 AM - Re: N Number Fonts (Gary Specketer)
6. 06:26 AM - Re: Re: Re: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS (Tim Olson)
7. 06:48 AM - Andair Fuel Valve install pictures. (Doerr, Ray R [NTK])
8. 06:51 AM - Parking Brake Valve Installation picture. (Doerr, Ray R [NTK])
9. 08:02 AM - Re: Gascolator (Randy DeBauw)
10. 08:08 AM - Re: N Number Fonts (Randy DeBauw)
11. 08:23 AM - Re: Extras to Order with QB Wings (AndrewTR30@aol.com)
12. 08:24 AM - Re: N Number Fonts (lyf@meritel.net)
13. 08:54 AM - Paint Scheme picked (Tim Olson)
14. 10:22 AM - Re: Interior Painting / Andair Fuel Valve (Scott Schmidt)
15. 10:42 AM - Re: Panel Rib Mod (Tim Olson)
16. 10:56 AM - Re: Panel Rib Mod (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
17. 11:22 AM - Re: Panel Rib Mod (Tim Olson)
18. 11:22 AM - Re: Panel Rib Mod (John Jessen)
19. 12:07 PM - Re: Panel Rib Mod (Tim Olson)
20. 01:55 PM - Rudder Pedal Placement. (Doerr, Ray R [NTK])
21. 02:07 PM - Re: Panel Rib Mod (Jesse Saint)
22. 02:13 PM - Drilling the actuator (Tim Olson)
23. 02:18 PM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. (owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com)
24. 02:28 PM - Re: Drilling the actuator (Randy DeBauw)
25. 02:28 PM - Re: Drilling the actuator (Doerr, Ray R [NTK])
26. 02:57 PM - Re: Drilling the actuator (Scott Schmidt)
27. 03:11 PM - Chelton Sport install (David McNeill)
28. 03:52 PM - Making all the mistakes so you don't have to... (Tim Olson)
29. 04:20 PM - Re: Rattle can mystery (Rick)
30. 05:05 PM - Re: Gascolator (Mark Chamberlain)
31. 05:07 PM - Re: Drilling the actuator (Tim Olson)
32. 05:09 PM - Question for Tim - was: Eeerie Paint Coincidence!! (Byron Gillespie)
33. 05:45 PM - Re: Question for Tim - was: Eeerie Paint Coincidence!! (Tim Olson)
34. 08:11 PM - Re: Panel Rib Mod (owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com)
35. 09:57 PM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. (Tim Olson)
36. 11:13 PM - Re: rudder question (Deems Davis)
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 |
|
d="scan'208"; a="47312513:sNHT28375370"
| Subject: | Rattle can mystery |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Ok. I've found the reason why the SW 988 can was shooting so much primer at
my pieces that there was literally a pool of it on the cardboard. For those
who haven't yet used one, when you take off the cap, you'll find a tiny red
"cap" covering the nozzle. DON'T TAKE THAT LITTLE BUGGER OUT! It has a
tiny orifice in it that makes a nice spray of primer, but if you are really
a dunce and take it out, as I did, thinking it was a protective seal, then
you'll have a flood of primer to deal with.
On the positive side, the stuff works pretty good so far. Goes on nicely.
Dries quickly. Other than that, we'll see.
John Jessen
(working on the rudder while contemplating the Zen of riveting)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sean Stephens
Subject: RV10-List: Excellent -10 Picture!
--> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
Here's a great picture from Van's Hobbs Meter off their site. Two -10s fly
from the same location on the same day! One is the "Tim Paint Scheme
Look-Alike" :)
<http://www.vansaircraft.com/images/first_flight/pair_of_tens_lg.jpg>
-Sean #40303 (ailerons - Dang, that leading edge skin is hard to cleco on
top)
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
I had the same thing as well. I went for it as it appears there is a LOT
more work on the fuselage than the wings. I had initially asked to have the
wings and fuselage shipped together to save shipping costs and Barbara
offered to discount the estimated difference. Saved me all of $85 but I
guess everything helps. I got a call a week ago and she said the wings were
ready so it shouldn't be too much of a wait for you either. I'm having them
shipped with the finishing kit first week of Jul so I need to get busy
clearing room out in the garage!
Marcus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Byron Gillespie
Subject: RE: RV10-List: QB fuselage
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Byron Gillespie" <bgill1@charter.net>
That pretty well matches up with the conversation I had today. I
received the call yesterday that my QB wings were ready to ship. I am
going QB wings and std fuselage and am only about 20% complete. When I
checked back today, I asked if there was a wait on the wings and she
said that they had several QB fuselage kits that were without wings so I
opted to let someone else have the wings and I'll hold off till the
fall. No since in letting them sit in the crate when someone else could
be doing something with them. Save the cash balance and continue to
dimple away.....
Byron
Deep in the std fus..#40253
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Subject: RV10-List: QB fuselage
--> RV10-List message posted by: Robert <retiredpilot03-serv@yahoo.com>
I received an interesting call today from Barbara
at Van's. It seems that the folks in the
Philipines are producing fuselages but not too
many wings. She wanted to know if I wanted to go
ahead and have the fuselage shipped. Since I am
in the processing of riveting the tail cone and
the rest of the QB kit wasn't supposed to be
shipped until August I thought I would go ahead
and have it shipped :-)
I asked her if they didn't quite get it in the
Philipines that there needed to be 2 wings with
every fuselage. She laughed and said maybe they
would catch on soon.
Oh well I'm happy to be getting the fuse now so
the project won't be delayed.
Robert Vinroot
N843RV #40343
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jim Combs" <jimc@mail.infra-read.com>
Somewhere a while back I remember reading about several aricraft that were grounded
by the FAA when they deemed that N Numbers did not meet published FAA specs.
These were aircraft that had been recently painted and the painters had taken
liberty with the N Number Font.
>From everywhere I have searched, I have only found ARIAL BOLD or ARIAL BOLD ITALIC
as the approved font for N-Numbers.
Yet in several recent pictures, it is obvious that other fonts are being used.
Anyone know if this is a problem or not?
The paint jobs are really fantastic and it would be nice to be able to be a little
creative, but what are the limits to being creative and being grounded by
the FAA?
Thanks, Jim C
#40192 - Fuselage
N312F Reserved
Do Not Archive
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
--> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
Here's a great picture from Van's Hobbs Meter off their site. Two -10s
fly from the same location on the same day! One is the "Tim Paint
Scheme Look-Alike" :)
<http://www.vansaircraft.com/images/first_flight/pair_of_tens_lg.jpg>
-Sean #40303 (ailerons - Dang, that leading edge skin is hard to cleco
on top)
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 |
|
I thought the same thing when I saw a couple of those recent -10s.
I think you do run the risk of an FAA ramp check grounding you until your N numbers
comply, if there is some question about meeting the FAR. There is a restriction
against "ornamentation". Could depend what side of the bed the FAA inspector
woke up on that day.
TDT
Do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Jim Combs
Subject: RV10-List: N Number Fonts
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jim Combs" <jimc@mail.infra-read.com>
Somewhere a while back I remember reading about several aricraft that were grounded
by the FAA when they deemed that N Numbers did not meet published FAA specs.
These were aircraft that had been recently painted and the painters had taken
liberty with the N Number Font.
>From everywhere I have searched, I have only found ARIAL BOLD or ARIAL BOLD ITALIC
as the approved font for N-Numbers.
Yet in several recent pictures, it is obvious that other fonts are being used.
Anyone know if this is a problem or not?
The paint jobs are really fantastic and it would be nice to be able to be a little
creative, but what are the limits to being creative and being grounded by
the FAA?
Thanks, Jim C
#40192 - Fuselage
N312F Reserved
Do Not Archive
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
--> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
Here's a great picture from Van's Hobbs Meter off their site. Two -10s
fly from the same location on the same day! One is the "Tim Paint
Scheme Look-Alike" :)
<http://www.vansaircraft.com/images/first_flight/pair_of_tens_lg.jpg>
-Sean #40303 (ailerons - Dang, that leading edge skin is hard to cleco
on top)
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Gary Specketer" <speckter@comcast.net>
In my experience the inspectors are not into fonts. If it looks like a
Bold type they will probably approve it. The farther away from that you
get the more varibles you get with inspectors (DARs). There have been
several reports that people have gotten to OSH and only there found out
that they were noncompliant.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Combs
Subject: RV10-List: N Number Fonts
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jim Combs" <jimc@mail.infra-read.com>
Somewhere a while back I remember reading about several aricraft that
were grounded by the FAA when they deemed that N Numbers did not meet
published FAA specs. These were aircraft that had been recently painted
and the painters had taken liberty with the N Number Font.
>From everywhere I have searched, I have only found ARIAL BOLD or ARIAL
>BOLD ITALIC as the approved font for N-Numbers.
Yet in several recent pictures, it is obvious that other fonts are being
used.
Anyone know if this is a problem or not?
The paint jobs are really fantastic and it would be nice to be able to
be a little creative, but what are the limits to being creative and
being grounded by the FAA?
Thanks, Jim C
#40192 - Fuselage
N312F Reserved
Do Not Archive
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
--> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
Here's a great picture from Van's Hobbs Meter off their site. Two -10s
fly from the same location on the same day! One is the "Tim Paint
Scheme Look-Alike" :)
<http://www.vansaircraft.com/images/first_flight/pair_of_tens_lg.jpg>
-Sean #40303 (ailerons - Dang, that leading edge skin is hard to cleco
on top)
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
This post was actually written by Vic Syracuse...he had problems sending
it to the list so I'm posting it for him.
-------
Lots of great info from Tim regarding this subject, but I think one area
needs clarification. I don't believe you need a switch between the
Chelton and the SL 30, as that happens by choosing Nav or GPS on the
front of the Sorcerer. In a nutshell, the Chelton is using the GPS info
from the internal GPS db to recreate the approach. The 150 MV signals
from theSL 30 (or Garmin 430/530/480) are hardwired to the Sorcerer (and
a CDI if so desired). I think the win here is that the Sorcerer is then
accurately flying the ILS from the raw ILS signals, and the Chelton is
displaying the HITS for you. If you add the CDI and tie it to the SL 30
or Garmin, you can now accurately monitor the approach from 2
independent sources.
The only switch that is an option would be to switch the ARINC 429 lines
to the autopilot if you have 2 GPS's, such as the Chelton and another
Garmin 430/530/480 etc. That way, just in case you lose the GPS from the
Chelton, the Garmin is a backup source. And just technically (please
let's not start a flame war here) the Garmin is certified and so the
legality of the GPS approach should not be in question.
Vic Syracuse
Senior Vice President, Operations & Technology Solutions
S1 Corporation
Atlanta, GA
678-421-4195
vic.syracuse@s1.com
S1. Giving You One View
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> Geez, whatever happened to turn the dial and fly the needles. Now it's
> turn the dial, flip this switch, go to this screen, make sure you are on
> the right radio, check your output, and, oh ya, fly the boxes. Someone
> want to put this into a flowchart that can be laminated for reference. :-P
>
> In all seriousness though, I would love to see some sort of chart that
> shows what can be used to do something using which hardware. Anyone
> bored enough to start a running spreadsheet documenting some of the
> expected interactions between the more popular hardware? After all, it
> took at least a couple of conversations between you guys and the vendors
> to finally get it to this point and it's not exactly crystal clear.
>
> Michael
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 6:06 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: RE: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> Today I spent a little bit of time talking to TruTrak, Direct2Avionics,
> and another RV-10 builder/Chelton owner. I did get some great
> clarification into this issue that actually helps verify the paragraph
> below by Robin.
>
> Here's the deal...
>
> Normally, autopilot commands would be put out as +/- 150 mV signals
> (left/right/up/down...that sort of thing) to command the autopilot. As
> we know, the TruTrak Digiflight II VSGV is digital only, so it does not
> have these inputs. The Sorcerer
> DOES have these inputs. The SL-30 talks to the Chelton
> using RS232 Serial data, rather than these +/- 150mv signals.
> The Chelton still receives the proper data to draw the needle display on
> your Chelton screens (any of them), so you still
> have a great CDI indicator. The Chelton can also fly an
> ILS approach, as Josh's post mentions. Here's why...
> It's not that the Chelton interprets the RS232 and feeds
> +/- 150 mV signals to the autopilot. The Chelton has the
> approach database in it with the synthetic vision HITS approaches.
> They're displayed on-screen using GPS. You load the ILS, and the
> Chelton will fly your Digiflight II VSGV including the vertical guidance
> for the approach, controlling your autopilot right down the approach, to
> ATP standards.
> Simultaneously, you're displaying the CDI needles from the localizer on
> the screen. In the event of a discrepency, you're supposed to fly the
> approach to the CDI needles, not the HITS.
> Most of the time, they will match up great. If you ever see that they
> don't, you would need to hand-fly that approach.
> Since you display it all on the Chelton, there is no big issue with
> that....you're flying the GPS derived approach, on a real ILS approach,
> but you're monitoring those needles the whole time...so you can legally
> fly the approach. All that's lacking is a +/- 150mV CONVERSION to
> Digital contol for the autopilot....so in effect, you aren't getting a
> direct ILS localizer/Glideslope control to your autopilot....you're
> getting the display, but the control is done on GPS data.
>
> This whole thing isn't really a Chelton issue, although they could maybe
> add that functionality and it would be another big plus.
>
> The issue is that the buyer has a Digiflight II VSGV with no
> +/- 150mV inputs.
>
> If the buyer buys a Sorcerer, you can now fly directly input +/- 150mV
> signals that are produced by your SL-30 or other Nav radio. The
> Sorcerer has this ability.
> But, in order to do this, you'll want to install a source select switch
> on your Autopilot....so you can choose if you want to fly it from the
> SL-30 or the Chelton.
> (it may be that you can select the source from the buttons on the
> sorcerer...I'm not sure on that one yet).
> At this point, your Chelton is now nothing more than a CDI for the
> approach (along with it's other functions). Your radio and autopilot
> are directly flying the glideslope and approach. I do agree that this
> is nice capability, but given the performance and capability of the
> Chelton, I would really question the added value.....because the
> Sorcerer will cost you over $3,000 more....all while causing you to NOT
> get the benefit you could be getting out of your Chelton's awesome
> flight planning and HITS.
>
> You Might say "what if my Chelton dies", but remember that you have 2 or
> more screens, and they're independently capable of displaying that CDI.
> You can lose AHRS, and still show those needles.
>
> In my implementation, I still plan to connect the Autopilot to my Radios
> with a source select switch, Chelton or GNS480.
> I won't have an external CDI, because I'm comfortable with trusting the
> Chelton CDI....however, if someone wanted to add a separate CDI, then
> you should be able to fly an approach using the GNS480 coupled directly
> to the DFIIVSGV, using the external CDI for display, and lose the entire
> Chelton system. I do see from the install manual that hooking a GNS480
> to a DFIIVSGV requires hooking up both Serial and AIRINC 429 lines, but
> I can't tell you for sure if this means the GNS480 can control the
> vertical navigation of the DFIIVSGV. I'm thinking yes, because it's
> listed as a normally supported feature of that AP, but I'll talk to
> TruTrak to verify that one.
>
> As for the functionality being integrated into the Chelton at a later
> date to actually control the autopilot based on the ILS signalling
> instead of it's internal GPS....Robin said he thought the only way it
> would work in the future would be after a software upgrade and with the
> Sorcerer. My take is a bit different. I don't think I'd hold my breath for
> +/- 150mV signalling OUT of the Chelton....because that
> would be software AND hardware changes. My *guess* is that IF this is
> ever implemented, it would work with the DFIIVSGV because they would
> just use the signal they get that shows the needles on screen and
> process that data and output it digitally....that way it doesn't require
> a hardware upgrade.
> So I'd think that you really just need to look at how bad you think you
> need that sorcerer TODAY and make the choice.
> If you'll use it today, great, but I doubt you'll have any
> *increased* need tomorrow.
>
>
> So, I was getting a bit worried when I saw the thread reappear with what
> was seemingly conflicting information.
> As it turned out, the old info still applied, just not in the
> way that I thought exactly. If you're comfortable allowing
> the Chelton's synthetic vision GPS enabled approach data to fly your
> ILS, all the while monitoring your CDI needles on screen, coupled to
> your DFIIVSGV, then you're fine. If your needles don't match the HITS,
> you do an AP disconnect and hand fly it the rest of the way. Since it
> would be crazy to just let your autopilot fly an approach without
> monitoring it, I don't see this as a bad trade-off. I'm not likely to
> be too interested in the alternative.....turn off the approach on the
> chelton, load the approach on the GNS480 and fly it on the GNS480,
> without using the Chelton for more than a CDI display....that would be
> my Emergency mode of operation.
>
> Hopefully that clarifies, instead of muddies the info.
> The hardest thing about this Avionics stuff is getting all the proper
> info compiled.
>
> Oh, and I opened my SL-30 install manual today. Turns out that you can
> kind of get a feel for some of these connections if you dig through the
> manual...who woulda thunk it. ;)
>
> Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
>
> Robin Wessel wrote:
> > * *
> >
> > *Hold the phone.... Why are you referring to "into VNAV guidance*
> > *for the GPS"? Where does this come into play?? I'm not concerned*
> > *if it can take ILS glideslope data and use it for a GPS approach.* *I
> > want it to take the ILS glideslope and display it as a pair* *of
> > needles. That it will do. What it won't do is let you* *fly a
> > non-GPS overlaid approach, using the HITS boxes. i.e.* *when you fly
> > an ILS, you need to use the needles, not the* *boxes. Is this your
> > understanding, or what am I missing?*
>
> >
> > Tim-
> >
> > Sorry if I was not clear in my comments about the VNAV guidance with
> > the Chelton. What I should have said is VNAV guidance for the A/P.
> > As you know, the Digiflight A/P can only steer based on NMEA and ARINC
> > signals not analog +/-150mV signals. I was really hoping that the
> > Chelton would convert the SL30 glideslope data coming in digitally and
> > convert it into VNAV commands for the Digiflight. This would eliminate
> > the need for the expensive Sorcerer in order to get a true coupled ILS.
> > As a credit to Peter at Direct2avioncs, he felt that adding this
> > capability would be something to consider. Hopefully by the time I
> > need to plunk down the cash, this capability will be included.
> >
> >
> >
> > robin
> >
>
>
>
> ====================================
> RV10-List Email Forum -
> more:
> bsp;
> s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ====================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Andair Fuel Valve install pictures. |
Here are a couple of pictures of my Andair Fuel Valve
installation. The left 90 degree fitting is the prop governor fitting
which is shorter and allows the clearance necessary for the tunnel side
wall and the rudder cable. The Fuel valve came from Van's.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
CDNI Principal Engineer
Sprint PCS
16020 West 113th Street
Lenexa, KS 66219
Mailstop KSLNXK0101
(913) 859-1414 (Office)
(913) 226-0106 (Pcs)
(913) 859-1234 (Fax)
Ray.R.Doerr@mail.sprint.com
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: | Parking Brake Valve Installation picture. |
Here is a picture of my Parking Brake Valve installation. The mount
that holds it to the firewall also is used to clamp the end of the
push/pull cable and also has the limits of travel set in it for the
valve.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
40250
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 |
|
Hello Mark, I have a friend who just took off there gascolator on his
RV9 because of vapor lock. Randy
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Chamberlain
Subject: RV10-List: Gascolator
Wondering if any one has some thoughts on whether to use a gascolator or
not on the IO-540 version. I have had a nice Andaire one for some time
but not sure if I really need it. I noticed it is part of the FWF kit,
But when I talked to the Van's folks they didn't think it was necessary
and couldn't even remember if they put one on their 10. In addition to
that, there are no mention of it in the FWF plans. Ideas/ thoughts
appreciated. Thx. Mark (40016)
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy@abros.com>
As I remember it the rule is a font that is readable from 500 feet
without any visual aid (binoculars). That is for the 12" numbers.
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Combs
Subject: RV10-List: N Number Fonts
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jim Combs" <jimc@mail.infra-read.com>
Somewhere a while back I remember reading about several aricraft that
were grounded by the FAA when they deemed that N Numbers did not meet
published FAA specs. These were aircraft that had been recently painted
and the painters had taken liberty with the N Number Font.
>From everywhere I have searched, I have only found ARIAL BOLD or ARIAL
BOLD ITALIC as the approved font for N-Numbers.
Yet in several recent pictures, it is obvious that other fonts are being
used.
Anyone know if this is a problem or not?
The paint jobs are really fantastic and it would be nice to be able to
be a little creative, but what are the limits to being creative and
being grounded by the FAA?
Thanks, Jim C
#40192 - Fuselage
N312F Reserved
Do Not Archive
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
--> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
Here's a great picture from Van's Hobbs Meter off their site. Two -10s
fly from the same location on the same day! One is the "Tim Paint
Scheme Look-Alike" :)
<http://www.vansaircraft.com/images/first_flight/pair_of_tens_lg.jpg>
-Sean #40303 (ailerons - Dang, that leading edge skin is hard to cleco
on top)
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Extras to Order with QB Wings |
Don't forget your fuel level senders, you need a left and a right. You might
also order some conduit from Vans if that's the type you are planning on
using.
Andrew
QB Wings.
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: N Number Fonts |
The N Numbers just need to
be Block Type lettering . that was how it was explained to me by an FAA
inspector here in my area. just fyi.
Lyf Halvorsen
lyf@meritel.net
Randy DeBauw wrote:
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy@abros.com>
>
>As I remember it the rule is a font that is readable from 500 feet
>without any visual aid (binoculars). That is for the 12" numbers.
>Randy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Combs
>Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 4:42 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: N Number Fonts
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jim Combs" <jimc@mail.infra-read.com>
>
>Somewhere a while back I remember reading about several aricraft that
>were grounded by the FAA when they deemed that N Numbers did not meet
>published FAA specs. These were aircraft that had been recently painted
>and the painters had taken liberty with the N Number Font.
>
>>From everywhere I have searched, I have only found ARIAL BOLD or ARIAL
>BOLD ITALIC as the approved font for N-Numbers.
>
>Yet in several recent pictures, it is obvious that other fonts are being
>used.
>
>Anyone know if this is a problem or not?
>
>The paint jobs are really fantastic and it would be nice to be able to
>be a little creative, but what are the limits to being creative and
>being grounded by the FAA?
>
>Thanks, Jim C
>#40192 - Fuselage
>N312F Reserved
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
>Reply-To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:57:39 -0700
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
>
>Here's a great picture from Van's Hobbs Meter off their site. Two -10s
>fly from the same location on the same day! One is the "Tim Paint
>Scheme Look-Alike" :)
>
><http://www.vansaircraft.com/images/first_flight/pair_of_tens_lg.jpg>
>
>-Sean #40303 (ailerons - Dang, that leading edge skin is hard to cleco
>on top)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Paint Scheme picked |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
For those who wanted to see my final paint choice, I stayed up
late last night with the wife and tweaked it to our
perfection....then created 4 views using the 3-view diagrams from
Van's and that photo that I photoshopped into that isometric view.
I have re-worked all of the blank images so you can download them
and use them to sketch out your paint schemes. Print them out
and give them to your kids...let them choose the color and
the scheme...it's entertaining.
Here's a link:
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/paint/
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: | Interior Painting / Andair Fuel Valve |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt@ussynthetic.com>
I ordered mine directly from Andair in a black finish and it only took 5
months.
Just don't get anything custom on it and it should be shipped right
away.
Scott Schmidt
Cell: 801-319-3094
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
-----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: Interior Painting / Andair Fuel Valve
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Any idea of how long it took to get? I'd like to have this
all done this week.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Greg Young wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>
> You could also replace the fitting on the Andair valve, assuming it's
> one of the side fittings. I got replacements from Andair for ~$12
each.
>
> Greg
>
>
>>--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>>
>>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I got started on my Andair fuel valve install this weekend.
>>Only got started and not finished because as it turns out,
>>the valve that Wicks sells is NOT the one you'd want to do
>>the -10. Van's sells one with 1/4" NPT, but Wicks has 3/8"
>>MALE flare. The fix is to send back the Wicks valve and buy
>>one from Van's, or spend over $55 for a 90 degree swivel
>>Banjo fitting for the Andair from Wicks. Don't know which
>>way it'll be yet though.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Panel Rib Mod |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Hey, great discussion guys!! Now, I completely understand what you're
trying to get across Niko, so please don't think that this is meant to
be defensive....and I definitely understand that you know more about
this than I do in the terms of the book knowledge. I don't know if
you've actually had your hands on this panel area yet, so forgive me
if I assume you haven't.
John, I don't exactly know how that paragraph is intended to be read,
but you may have a point on the use of the word "forward".
Tim, (Mr. TDT), you might not have read my page that had these photos
on it, but I specifically mentioned the plans state that this isn't
"allowed" (but Johns dissemenation may disagree with that). In fact,
that's why I added photos of the plans that people could read. I wanted
to make sure people understood that this may not sit well with Van's.
I got home tonight and went straight for this panel to look at the
modification closer. First, you should all by now understand and
assume that anything I spew forth should be taken as my opinion only,
and trust the judgment as you wish. I'm not professing to be an expert
on pretty much any of this project. But, let me tell you what I
noticed when I looked at this.
As I mentioned in my previous post, this aluminum angle is much thicker
and stiffer than the original rib aluminum. And although Niko pointed
out that there those angles with the cuts in them will prove to be
a weaker link, I don't believe it's nearly as serious as one might.
For one thing, Johns point that I did not cut through the aluminum
does mean that it would take some added force to break that bend where
each segment comes together. Not just a little force, but considering
that it has another half of the angle riveted to the rib, it would
be a pretty extrordinary force....not general use, but a crash.
So, I looked at how the overall structure was. They use pretty
flimsy metal in all of those ribs, and the sub-panel. Not very
stiff at all. When I pushed, pulled, tugged, bent and yanked on this
upper rib, it always stayed nice and solid on the skinny, rearward
portion of the rib. Almost no movement at all....with it being
VERY solid....all the way back to the sub panel. Then, at the point
where the angles I added meet the sub panel and the rib is back to
full size, you do not have that added thickness of the .063 angle.
As it turns out, all of my forces were easily able to deform (non
destructively) and bend and twist that taller forward portion of the
rib. Not because of some flaw in the modification, but because that
rib is very thin and flimsy on its own. It would be a heck of a lot
tougher if the angle I added were added to the forward portion of
the rib also.
So, from my non-scientific, non-manthematical, non-engineering
viewpoint, I truly think that my modified rib would actually
hold up better than the original rib would. In fact, if the
panel top were a table, I'd bet that I could put more weight
on it before that rib bent than before. When it bent, I can
tell you where it would bend too....right at that subpanel.
You can just feel it when you wiggle the darn thing.
So, this isn't some "in your face" reply....please don't take
it as that, as I know sometimes people interpret emotion
differently than intended in email. But, despite the truly
logical, well thought out, calculated and scientific drawings
that Niko did, I'm very happy with how the modification turned
out and I personally have no concerns. I only wish that this
wasn't just an email group, but you guys could come yank
and bend it around for yourself.
So John Jessen, I know from your reply that you have concerns, and
I'm not saying you should take my advice, but I just want to ease
your mind that I don't think this is as big a problem as it
is sounding like. Sure, from an engineering standpoint it
isn't perfect....but I personally feel it will hold up fantastically,
especially when you consider that you are going to be adding
a lot of stiffness to the structure when you screw the flat
panel and lower subpanel in and connect that rib to the panel.
Think about it, when that panel is in place, the lower edge is
secured by the fuselage sides, and if you want to bend that rib
down, you're going to have to A) Fold your panel by squashing
it vertically, or B) squash your fuselage inward from side to
side by crushing it in a crash. This thing isn't going anywhere
unless you have a major major accident, either way, and in
that accident, there would be a lot of other structure that would
be much more worrysome than this little panel rib.
Great discussion though. Keep adding to it as you wish. Thanks
Niko for taking the time to draw all of that out. It's valuable
for everone to see. Do note that I didn't cut all the way thru
those aluminum angles though.
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
John W. Cox wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox"
> <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>
> "Removal of material from the F-1044 Center (Forward) Fuselage Rib
> subassembly OR F-1045-Left (Forward) Fuselage Rib and Right (Forward)
> Fuselage Rib is not allowed." There is no mention of the portion AFT
> of said components.
>
> I interpret that to currently allow the builder to modify the aft
> portions on F-1044 Center Subassembly towards the PIC at
> F-1003C-Left, Center and Right from F-1068B Center going AFT on
> F-1045L and from F-1068B R going AFT on F- 1045 Right would be
> reasonably acceptable. Meaning that Tim's modification is within the
> scope of current written instructions on Page 41-2 dated July 21,
> 2004. Good news for pursuit of 21st Century instruments.
>
> I must still be missing something.
>
> On a second note: you can certainly read it that way and not pursue
> room for Chelton, BMA, GRapids or other glass components while
> keeping the music "On Key". It is a great discussion point and
> demonstrates the value of this forum.
>
>
> John - $00.02
>
> ________________________________________ From:
> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
> Dawson-Townsend Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 6:06 PM To:
> rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
>
> Just browsing Chapter 41 of the fuse plans where it says not to
> remove any material from any of these three ribs . . .
>
> TDT
>
>
> ________________________________________ From:
> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of John W. Cox Sent:
> Mon 6/13/2005 8:40 PM To: rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RE:
> RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod Niko, your illustration drives home the
> point and is most appreciated. However, your illustration shows an
> actual cut in the lower diagonal edge into four independent and
> separate elements. Tim's work introduced bends into this (diagonal
> curved) edge without cuts clear through, which would decrease
> strength yet his cuts were only on the vertical which were
> effectively doubled back into the original rib vertical. There must
> be a computer analysis that could computate the revised doubled
> design with comparison to the original rib. We could calculate the
> weight of desired safety components (glass cockpit technology) and
> the effective arm down to 00.01" then couldn't you derive the lever
> down force on the instrument face.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> The real issue ought to be a mechanism to improve placement of ribs
> F-1045-L & R along the firewall and incorporate mounting of the
> instrument panel and sunscreen to give the widest range of
> ergonomically placed and visually oriented safety equipment. It
> creates a conundrum on how Lancair was able to mount Randy's stuff so
> stylishly without engineering compromise.
>
> John
>
> ________________________________________ From:
> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos
> Napoli Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 4:42 PM To:
> rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
>
> Here is how I might make a rib mod. It might be overkill, however,
> unless I knew what the loads were I would have no choice but to
> replace the original strength.
>
> Niko 40188
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
Tim:
I think you should test your mod before you go further. Start stacking some concrete
blocks on top of your modified rib until it bends, then replace the rib
and weigh the blocks. Then you'll know the exact load it can handle . . .
(apologies to Calvin and Hobbes . . . )
: )
TDT
DO not archive
-----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: Panel Rib Mod
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Hey, great discussion guys!! Now, I completely understand what you're
trying to get across Niko, so please don't think that this is meant to
be defensive....and I definitely understand that you know more about
this than I do in the terms of the book knowledge. I don't know if
you've actually had your hands on this panel area yet, so forgive me
if I assume you haven't.
John, I don't exactly know how that paragraph is intended to be read,
but you may have a point on the use of the word "forward".
Tim, (Mr. TDT), you might not have read my page that had these photos
on it, but I specifically mentioned the plans state that this isn't
"allowed" (but Johns dissemenation may disagree with that). In fact,
that's why I added photos of the plans that people could read. I wanted
to make sure people understood that this may not sit well with Van's.
I got home tonight and went straight for this panel to look at the
modification closer. First, you should all by now understand and
assume that anything I spew forth should be taken as my opinion only,
and trust the judgment as you wish. I'm not professing to be an expert
on pretty much any of this project. But, let me tell you what I
noticed when I looked at this.
As I mentioned in my previous post, this aluminum angle is much thicker
and stiffer than the original rib aluminum. And although Niko pointed
out that there those angles with the cuts in them will prove to be
a weaker link, I don't believe it's nearly as serious as one might.
For one thing, Johns point that I did not cut through the aluminum
does mean that it would take some added force to break that bend where
each segment comes together. Not just a little force, but considering
that it has another half of the angle riveted to the rib, it would
be a pretty extrordinary force....not general use, but a crash.
So, I looked at how the overall structure was. They use pretty
flimsy metal in all of those ribs, and the sub-panel. Not very
stiff at all. When I pushed, pulled, tugged, bent and yanked on this
upper rib, it always stayed nice and solid on the skinny, rearward
portion of the rib. Almost no movement at all....with it being
VERY solid....all the way back to the sub panel. Then, at the point
where the angles I added meet the sub panel and the rib is back to
full size, you do not have that added thickness of the .063 angle.
As it turns out, all of my forces were easily able to deform (non
destructively) and bend and twist that taller forward portion of the
rib. Not because of some flaw in the modification, but because that
rib is very thin and flimsy on its own. It would be a heck of a lot
tougher if the angle I added were added to the forward portion of
the rib also.
So, from my non-scientific, non-manthematical, non-engineering
viewpoint, I truly think that my modified rib would actually
hold up better than the original rib would. In fact, if the
panel top were a table, I'd bet that I could put more weight
on it before that rib bent than before. When it bent, I can
tell you where it would bend too....right at that subpanel.
You can just feel it when you wiggle the darn thing.
So, this isn't some "in your face" reply....please don't take
it as that, as I know sometimes people interpret emotion
differently than intended in email. But, despite the truly
logical, well thought out, calculated and scientific drawings
that Niko did, I'm very happy with how the modification turned
out and I personally have no concerns. I only wish that this
wasn't just an email group, but you guys could come yank
and bend it around for yourself.
So John Jessen, I know from your reply that you have concerns, and
I'm not saying you should take my advice, but I just want to ease
your mind that I don't think this is as big a problem as it
is sounding like. Sure, from an engineering standpoint it
isn't perfect....but I personally feel it will hold up fantastically,
especially when you consider that you are going to be adding
a lot of stiffness to the structure when you screw the flat
panel and lower subpanel in and connect that rib to the panel.
Think about it, when that panel is in place, the lower edge is
secured by the fuselage sides, and if you want to bend that rib
down, you're going to have to A) Fold your panel by squashing
it vertically, or B) squash your fuselage inward from side to
side by crushing it in a crash. This thing isn't going anywhere
unless you have a major major accident, either way, and in
that accident, there would be a lot of other structure that would
be much more worrysome than this little panel rib.
Great discussion though. Keep adding to it as you wish. Thanks
Niko for taking the time to draw all of that out. It's valuable
for everone to see. Do note that I didn't cut all the way thru
those aluminum angles though.
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
John W. Cox wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox"
> <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>
> "Removal of material from the F-1044 Center (Forward) Fuselage Rib
> subassembly OR F-1045-Left (Forward) Fuselage Rib and Right (Forward)
> Fuselage Rib is not allowed." There is no mention of the portion AFT
> of said components.
>
> I interpret that to currently allow the builder to modify the aft
> portions on F-1044 Center Subassembly towards the PIC at
> F-1003C-Left, Center and Right from F-1068B Center going AFT on
> F-1045L and from F-1068B R going AFT on F- 1045 Right would be
> reasonably acceptable. Meaning that Tim's modification is within the
> scope of current written instructions on Page 41-2 dated July 21,
> 2004. Good news for pursuit of 21st Century instruments.
>
> I must still be missing something.
>
> On a second note: you can certainly read it that way and not pursue
> room for Chelton, BMA, GRapids or other glass components while
> keeping the music "On Key". It is a great discussion point and
> demonstrates the value of this forum.
>
>
> John - $00.02
>
> ________________________________________ From:
> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
> Dawson-Townsend Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 6:06 PM To:
> rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
>
> Just browsing Chapter 41 of the fuse plans where it says not to
> remove any material from any of these three ribs . . .
>
> TDT
>
>
> ________________________________________ From:
> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of John W. Cox Sent:
> Mon 6/13/2005 8:40 PM To: rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RE:
> RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod Niko, your illustration drives home the
> point and is most appreciated. However, your illustration shows an
> actual cut in the lower diagonal edge into four independent and
> separate elements. Tim's work introduced bends into this (diagonal
> curved) edge without cuts clear through, which would decrease
> strength yet his cuts were only on the vertical which were
> effectively doubled back into the original rib vertical. There must
> be a computer analysis that could computate the revised doubled
> design with comparison to the original rib. We could calculate the
> weight of desired safety components (glass cockpit technology) and
> the effective arm down to 00.01" then couldn't you derive the lever
> down force on the instrument face.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> The real issue ought to be a mechanism to improve placement of ribs
> F-1045-L & R along the firewall and incorporate mounting of the
> instrument panel and sunscreen to give the widest range of
> ergonomically placed and visually oriented safety equipment. It
> creates a conundrum on how Lancair was able to mount Randy's stuff so
> stylishly without engineering compromise.
>
> John
>
> ________________________________________ From:
> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos
> Napoli Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 4:42 PM To:
> rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
>
> Here is how I might make a rib mod. It might be overkill, however,
> unless I knew what the loads were I would have no choice but to
> replace the original strength.
>
> Niko 40188
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel Rib Mod |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
You know, that's what I like about you...always a comedian.
Does it go with the first name??
Concrete will scratch, I'll do the test using lead shot bags
like vans does to test their wings. I'll stop once I see
a permanent crease, or have shot all over my sub floor. ;)
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Tim Dawson-Townsend wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
> <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
>
>
> Tim:
>
> I think you should test your mod before you go further. Start
> stacking some concrete blocks on top of your modified rib until it
> bends, then replace the rib and weigh the blocks. Then you'll know
> the exact load it can handle . . .
>
> (apologies to Calvin and Hobbes . . . )
>
> : )
>
> TDT
>
> DO not archive
>
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 |
|
d="scan'208"; a="50689941:sNHT36595528"
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Might have been John Cox who had expressed some concerns. Not me. I
already know the radios will fall into your lap as soon as the first 2g turn
happens!!!!! :-)
John Jessen
(can't get enough of the sound of a rivet being squeezed)
Do not archive
-----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: Panel Rib Mod
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Hey, great discussion guys!! Now, I completely understand what you're
trying to get across Niko, so please don't think that this is meant to be
defensive....and I definitely understand that you know more about this than
I do in the terms of the book knowledge. I don't know if you've actually
had your hands on this panel area yet, so forgive me if I assume you
haven't.
John, I don't exactly know how that paragraph is intended to be read, but
you may have a point on the use of the word "forward".
Tim, (Mr. TDT), you might not have read my page that had these photos on it,
but I specifically mentioned the plans state that this isn't "allowed" (but
Johns dissemenation may disagree with that). In fact, that's why I added
photos of the plans that people could read. I wanted to make sure people
understood that this may not sit well with Van's.
I got home tonight and went straight for this panel to look at the
modification closer. First, you should all by now understand and assume
that anything I spew forth should be taken as my opinion only, and trust the
judgment as you wish. I'm not professing to be an expert on pretty much any
of this project. But, let me tell you what I noticed when I looked at this.
As I mentioned in my previous post, this aluminum angle is much thicker and
stiffer than the original rib aluminum. And although Niko pointed out that
there those angles with the cuts in them will prove to be a weaker link, I
don't believe it's nearly as serious as one might.
For one thing, Johns point that I did not cut through the aluminum does mean
that it would take some added force to break that bend where each segment
comes together. Not just a little force, but considering that it has another
half of the angle riveted to the rib, it would be a pretty extrordinary
force....not general use, but a crash.
So, I looked at how the overall structure was. They use pretty flimsy metal
in all of those ribs, and the sub-panel. Not very stiff at all. When I
pushed, pulled, tugged, bent and yanked on this upper rib, it always stayed
nice and solid on the skinny, rearward portion of the rib. Almost no
movement at all....with it being
VERY solid....all the way back to the sub panel. Then, at the point
where the angles I added meet the sub panel and the rib is back to full
size, you do not have that added thickness of the .063 angle.
As it turns out, all of my forces were easily able to deform (non
destructively) and bend and twist that taller forward portion of the rib.
Not because of some flaw in the modification, but because that rib is very
thin and flimsy on its own. It would be a heck of a lot tougher if the
angle I added were added to the forward portion of the rib also.
So, from my non-scientific, non-manthematical, non-engineering viewpoint, I
truly think that my modified rib would actually hold up better than the
original rib would. In fact, if the panel top were a table, I'd bet that I
could put more weight on it before that rib bent than before. When it bent,
I can tell you where it would bend too....right at that subpanel.
You can just feel it when you wiggle the darn thing.
So, this isn't some "in your face" reply....please don't take it as that, as
I know sometimes people interpret emotion differently than intended in
email. But, despite the truly logical, well thought out, calculated and
scientific drawings that Niko did, I'm very happy with how the modification
turned out and I personally have no concerns. I only wish that this wasn't
just an email group, but you guys could come yank and bend it around for
yourself.
So John Jessen, I know from your reply that you have concerns, and I'm not
saying you should take my advice, but I just want to ease your mind that I
don't think this is as big a problem as it is sounding like. Sure, from an
engineering standpoint it isn't perfect....but I personally feel it will
hold up fantastically, especially when you consider that you are going to be
adding a lot of stiffness to the structure when you screw the flat panel and
lower subpanel in and connect that rib to the panel.
Think about it, when that panel is in place, the lower edge is secured by
the fuselage sides, and if you want to bend that rib down, you're going to
have to A) Fold your panel by squashing it vertically, or B) squash your
fuselage inward from side to side by crushing it in a crash. This thing
isn't going anywhere unless you have a major major accident, either way, and
in that accident, there would be a lot of other structure that would be much
more worrysome than this little panel rib.
Great discussion though. Keep adding to it as you wish. Thanks Niko for
taking the time to draw all of that out. It's valuable
for everone to see. Do note that I didn't cut all the way thru
those aluminum angles though.
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
John W. Cox wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox"
> <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>
> "Removal of material from the F-1044 Center (Forward) Fuselage Rib
> subassembly OR F-1045-Left (Forward) Fuselage Rib and Right (Forward)
> Fuselage Rib is not allowed." There is no mention of the portion AFT
> of said components.
>
> I interpret that to currently allow the builder to modify the aft
> portions on F-1044 Center Subassembly towards the PIC at F-1003C-Left,
> Center and Right from F-1068B Center going AFT on F-1045L and from
> F-1068B R going AFT on F- 1045 Right would be reasonably acceptable.
> Meaning that Tim's modification is within the scope of current written
> instructions on Page 41-2 dated July 21, 2004. Good news for pursuit
> of 21st Century instruments.
>
> I must still be missing something.
>
> On a second note: you can certainly read it that way and not pursue
> room for Chelton, BMA, GRapids or other glass components while keeping
> the music "On Key". It is a great discussion point and demonstrates
> the value of this forum.
>
>
> John - $00.02
>
> ________________________________________ From:
> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
> Dawson-Townsend Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 6:06 PM To:
> rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
>
> Just browsing Chapter 41 of the fuse plans where it says not to remove
> any material from any of these three ribs . . .
>
> TDT
>
>
> ________________________________________ From:
> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of John W. Cox Sent:
> Mon 6/13/2005 8:40 PM To: rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RE:
> RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod Niko, your illustration drives home the point
> and is most appreciated. However, your illustration shows an actual
> cut in the lower diagonal edge into four independent and separate
> elements. Tim's work introduced bends into this (diagonal
> curved) edge without cuts clear through, which would decrease strength
> yet his cuts were only on the vertical which were effectively doubled
> back into the original rib vertical. There must be a computer
> analysis that could computate the revised doubled design with
> comparison to the original rib. We could calculate the weight of
> desired safety components (glass cockpit technology) and the effective
> arm down to 00.01" then couldn't you derive the lever down force on
> the instrument face.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> The real issue ought to be a mechanism to improve placement of ribs
> F-1045-L & R along the firewall and incorporate mounting of the
> instrument panel and sunscreen to give the widest range of
> ergonomically placed and visually oriented safety equipment. It
> creates a conundrum on how Lancair was able to mount Randy's stuff so
> stylishly without engineering compromise.
>
> John
>
> ________________________________________ From:
> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos
> Napoli Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 4:42 PM To:
> rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
>
> Here is how I might make a rib mod. It might be overkill, however,
> unless I knew what the loads were I would have no choice but to
> replace the original strength.
>
> Niko 40188
>
>
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: Panel Rib Mod |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
C'mon, don't be shy......
<snip>
"When you two figure this out, PLEASE let us know the result. I think
we are all cutting these in some form or other and an example, even
though not the same, since all panels will differ, will certainly
benefit all. If there is an excel spreadsheet that can help out, that
would be icing on the cake.
John Jessen
(beginning to like Chilton's, darn)"
</snip>
(Just had to give you a little ribbin')
Tim
John Jessen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
>
> Might have been John Cox who had expressed some concerns. Not me. I
> already know the radios will fall into your lap as soon as the first 2g turn
> happens!!!!! :-)
>
> John Jessen
> (can't get enough of the sound of a rivet being squeezed)
>
> Do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 7:35 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> Hey, great discussion guys!! Now, I completely understand what you're
> trying to get across Niko, so please don't think that this is meant to be
> defensive....and I definitely understand that you know more about this than
> I do in the terms of the book knowledge. I don't know if you've actually
> had your hands on this panel area yet, so forgive me if I assume you
> haven't.
>
> John, I don't exactly know how that paragraph is intended to be read, but
> you may have a point on the use of the word "forward".
>
> Tim, (Mr. TDT), you might not have read my page that had these photos on it,
> but I specifically mentioned the plans state that this isn't "allowed" (but
> Johns dissemenation may disagree with that). In fact, that's why I added
> photos of the plans that people could read. I wanted to make sure people
> understood that this may not sit well with Van's.
>
> I got home tonight and went straight for this panel to look at the
> modification closer. First, you should all by now understand and assume
> that anything I spew forth should be taken as my opinion only, and trust the
> judgment as you wish. I'm not professing to be an expert on pretty much any
> of this project. But, let me tell you what I noticed when I looked at this.
>
> As I mentioned in my previous post, this aluminum angle is much thicker and
> stiffer than the original rib aluminum. And although Niko pointed out that
> there those angles with the cuts in them will prove to be a weaker link, I
> don't believe it's nearly as serious as one might.
> For one thing, Johns point that I did not cut through the aluminum does mean
> that it would take some added force to break that bend where each segment
> comes together. Not just a little force, but considering that it has another
> half of the angle riveted to the rib, it would be a pretty extrordinary
> force....not general use, but a crash.
> So, I looked at how the overall structure was. They use pretty flimsy metal
> in all of those ribs, and the sub-panel. Not very stiff at all. When I
> pushed, pulled, tugged, bent and yanked on this upper rib, it always stayed
> nice and solid on the skinny, rearward portion of the rib. Almost no
> movement at all....with it being
> VERY solid....all the way back to the sub panel. Then, at the point
> where the angles I added meet the sub panel and the rib is back to full
> size, you do not have that added thickness of the .063 angle.
> As it turns out, all of my forces were easily able to deform (non
> destructively) and bend and twist that taller forward portion of the rib.
> Not because of some flaw in the modification, but because that rib is very
> thin and flimsy on its own. It would be a heck of a lot tougher if the
> angle I added were added to the forward portion of the rib also.
>
> So, from my non-scientific, non-manthematical, non-engineering viewpoint, I
> truly think that my modified rib would actually hold up better than the
> original rib would. In fact, if the panel top were a table, I'd bet that I
> could put more weight on it before that rib bent than before. When it bent,
> I can tell you where it would bend too....right at that subpanel.
> You can just feel it when you wiggle the darn thing.
>
> So, this isn't some "in your face" reply....please don't take it as that, as
> I know sometimes people interpret emotion differently than intended in
> email. But, despite the truly logical, well thought out, calculated and
> scientific drawings that Niko did, I'm very happy with how the modification
> turned out and I personally have no concerns. I only wish that this wasn't
> just an email group, but you guys could come yank and bend it around for
> yourself.
>
> So John Jessen, I know from your reply that you have concerns, and I'm not
> saying you should take my advice, but I just want to ease your mind that I
> don't think this is as big a problem as it is sounding like. Sure, from an
> engineering standpoint it isn't perfect....but I personally feel it will
> hold up fantastically, especially when you consider that you are going to be
> adding a lot of stiffness to the structure when you screw the flat panel and
> lower subpanel in and connect that rib to the panel.
> Think about it, when that panel is in place, the lower edge is secured by
> the fuselage sides, and if you want to bend that rib down, you're going to
> have to A) Fold your panel by squashing it vertically, or B) squash your
> fuselage inward from side to side by crushing it in a crash. This thing
> isn't going anywhere unless you have a major major accident, either way, and
> in that accident, there would be a lot of other structure that would be much
> more worrysome than this little panel rib.
>
> Great discussion though. Keep adding to it as you wish. Thanks Niko for
> taking the time to draw all of that out. It's valuable
> for everone to see. Do note that I didn't cut all the way thru
> those aluminum angles though.
>
> Tim
>
>
> Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
>
>
> John W. Cox wrote:
>
>>--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox"
>><johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>>
>>"Removal of material from the F-1044 Center (Forward) Fuselage Rib
>>subassembly OR F-1045-Left (Forward) Fuselage Rib and Right (Forward)
>>Fuselage Rib is not allowed." There is no mention of the portion AFT
>>of said components.
>>
>>I interpret that to currently allow the builder to modify the aft
>>portions on F-1044 Center Subassembly towards the PIC at F-1003C-Left,
>>Center and Right from F-1068B Center going AFT on F-1045L and from
>>F-1068B R going AFT on F- 1045 Right would be reasonably acceptable.
>>Meaning that Tim's modification is within the scope of current written
>>instructions on Page 41-2 dated July 21, 2004. Good news for pursuit
>>of 21st Century instruments.
>>
>>I must still be missing something.
>>
>>On a second note: you can certainly read it that way and not pursue
>>room for Chelton, BMA, GRapids or other glass components while keeping
>>the music "On Key". It is a great discussion point and demonstrates
>>the value of this forum.
>>
>>
>>John - $00.02
>>
>>________________________________________ From:
>>owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
>>Dawson-Townsend Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 6:06 PM To:
>>rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
>>
>>Just browsing Chapter 41 of the fuse plans where it says not to remove
>>any material from any of these three ribs . . .
>>
>>TDT
>>
>>
>>________________________________________ From:
>>owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of John W. Cox Sent:
>>Mon 6/13/2005 8:40 PM To: rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RE:
>>RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod Niko, your illustration drives home the point
>>and is most appreciated. However, your illustration shows an actual
>>cut in the lower diagonal edge into four independent and separate
>>elements. Tim's work introduced bends into this (diagonal
>>curved) edge without cuts clear through, which would decrease strength
>>yet his cuts were only on the vertical which were effectively doubled
>>back into the original rib vertical. There must be a computer
>>analysis that could computate the revised doubled design with
>>comparison to the original rib. We could calculate the weight of
>>desired safety components (glass cockpit technology) and the effective
>>arm down to 00.01" then couldn't you derive the lever down force on
>>the instrument face.
>>
>>Am I missing something?
>>
>>The real issue ought to be a mechanism to improve placement of ribs
>>F-1045-L & R along the firewall and incorporate mounting of the
>>instrument panel and sunscreen to give the widest range of
>>ergonomically placed and visually oriented safety equipment. It
>>creates a conundrum on how Lancair was able to mount Randy's stuff so
>>stylishly without engineering compromise.
>>
>>John
>>
>>________________________________________ From:
>>owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos
>>Napoli Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 4:42 PM To:
>>rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
>>
>>Here is how I might make a rib mod. It might be overkill, however,
>>unless I knew what the loads were I would have no choice but to
>>replace the original strength.
>>
>>Niko 40188
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Rudder Pedal Placement. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr@mail.sprint.com>
Thank You
Ray Doerr
CDNI Principal Engineer
Sprint PCS
16020 West 113th Street
Lenexa, KS 66219
Mailstop KSLNXK0101
(913) 859-1414 (Office)
(913) 226-0106 (Pcs)
(913) 859-1234 (Fax)
Ray.R.Doerr@mail.sprint.com
use to install your rudder pedals? The forward or aft holes. I'm 6' 1"
tall and would expect to have mine installed in the forward position
which would then require me to create the steel rudder links to the 1"
length instead of the 2 1/4" length if you have them install in the aft
bolting location. The reason I ask is I don't have my finish kit yet
which includes the seats, so I can't try it on for size. I would like
to only have to create these links once. Another question is how much
travel is there in the seat rails?
Thanks Ray Doerr
40250
Getting ready to tackle the fiberglass top.
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Wow, this thread just keeps going, doesn't it!? When the first two planes
(one with the rib changed and one with the original) in the same way at the
same speed we will all know the better way to do it. In the mean time, like
everything else with the aircraft, if you're comfortable with it after
reading the volumes that have been written here about it, go for it. We
modified our sied panel ribs and removed most of the meat from the sub-panel
and I believe that section of the airplane is stronger now than it would
have been. It certainly makes it a lot easier to work with everything back
there both now and after we have the thing flying.
This is definitely the year of the -10. the first 6 flying within 1 month
of each other. Yesterday was the 14th and the first one flew on the 14th.
Not bad for a bunch of amateurs (I do include myself there and none of you
are included if you are either offended by that or are, in fact, not an
amateur).
Keep 'em going. This thing looks great and hopefully flies even great...er.
N256H #40241
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 Tim Olson
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
C'mon, don't be shy......
<snip>
"When you two figure this out, PLEASE let us know the result. I think
we are all cutting these in some form or other and an example, even
though not the same, since all panels will differ, will certainly
benefit all. If there is an excel spreadsheet that can help out, that
would be icing on the cake.
John Jessen
(beginning to like Chilton's, darn)"
</snip>
(Just had to give you a little ribbin')
Tim
John Jessen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
>
> Might have been John Cox who had expressed some concerns. Not me. I
> already know the radios will fall into your lap as soon as the first 2g
turn
> happens!!!!! :-)
>
> John Jessen
> (can't get enough of the sound of a rivet being squeezed)
>
> Do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 7:35 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> Hey, great discussion guys!! Now, I completely understand what you're
> trying to get across Niko, so please don't think that this is meant to be
> defensive....and I definitely understand that you know more about this
than
> I do in the terms of the book knowledge. I don't know if you've actually
> had your hands on this panel area yet, so forgive me if I assume you
> haven't.
>
> John, I don't exactly know how that paragraph is intended to be read, but
> you may have a point on the use of the word "forward".
>
> Tim, (Mr. TDT), you might not have read my page that had these photos on
it,
> but I specifically mentioned the plans state that this isn't "allowed"
(but
> Johns dissemenation may disagree with that). In fact, that's why I added
> photos of the plans that people could read. I wanted to make sure people
> understood that this may not sit well with Van's.
>
> I got home tonight and went straight for this panel to look at the
> modification closer. First, you should all by now understand and assume
> that anything I spew forth should be taken as my opinion only, and trust
the
> judgment as you wish. I'm not professing to be an expert on pretty much
any
> of this project. But, let me tell you what I noticed when I looked at
this.
>
> As I mentioned in my previous post, this aluminum angle is much thicker
and
> stiffer than the original rib aluminum. And although Niko pointed out
that
> there those angles with the cuts in them will prove to be a weaker link, I
> don't believe it's nearly as serious as one might.
> For one thing, Johns point that I did not cut through the aluminum does
mean
> that it would take some added force to break that bend where each segment
> comes together. Not just a little force, but considering that it has
another
> half of the angle riveted to the rib, it would be a pretty extrordinary
> force....not general use, but a crash.
> So, I looked at how the overall structure was. They use pretty flimsy
metal
> in all of those ribs, and the sub-panel. Not very stiff at all. When I
> pushed, pulled, tugged, bent and yanked on this upper rib, it always
stayed
> nice and solid on the skinny, rearward portion of the rib. Almost no
> movement at all....with it being
> VERY solid....all the way back to the sub panel. Then, at the point
> where the angles I added meet the sub panel and the rib is back to full
> size, you do not have that added thickness of the .063 angle.
> As it turns out, all of my forces were easily able to deform (non
> destructively) and bend and twist that taller forward portion of the rib.
> Not because of some flaw in the modification, but because that rib is very
> thin and flimsy on its own. It would be a heck of a lot tougher if the
> angle I added were added to the forward portion of the rib also.
>
> So, from my non-scientific, non-manthematical, non-engineering viewpoint,
I
> truly think that my modified rib would actually hold up better than the
> original rib would. In fact, if the panel top were a table, I'd bet that
I
> could put more weight on it before that rib bent than before. When it
bent,
> I can tell you where it would bend too....right at that subpanel.
> You can just feel it when you wiggle the darn thing.
>
> So, this isn't some "in your face" reply....please don't take it as that,
as
> I know sometimes people interpret emotion differently than intended in
> email. But, despite the truly logical, well thought out, calculated and
> scientific drawings that Niko did, I'm very happy with how the
modification
> turned out and I personally have no concerns. I only wish that this
wasn't
> just an email group, but you guys could come yank and bend it around for
> yourself.
>
> So John Jessen, I know from your reply that you have concerns, and I'm not
> saying you should take my advice, but I just want to ease your mind that I
> don't think this is as big a problem as it is sounding like. Sure, from
an
> engineering standpoint it isn't perfect....but I personally feel it will
> hold up fantastically, especially when you consider that you are going to
be
> adding a lot of stiffness to the structure when you screw the flat panel
and
> lower subpanel in and connect that rib to the panel.
> Think about it, when that panel is in place, the lower edge is secured by
> the fuselage sides, and if you want to bend that rib down, you're going to
> have to A) Fold your panel by squashing it vertically, or B) squash your
> fuselage inward from side to side by crushing it in a crash. This thing
> isn't going anywhere unless you have a major major accident, either way,
and
> in that accident, there would be a lot of other structure that would be
much
> more worrysome than this little panel rib.
>
> Great discussion though. Keep adding to it as you wish. Thanks Niko for
> taking the time to draw all of that out. It's valuable
> for everone to see. Do note that I didn't cut all the way thru
> those aluminum angles though.
>
> Tim
>
>
> Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
>
>
> John W. Cox wrote:
>
>>--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox"
>><johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>>
>>"Removal of material from the F-1044 Center (Forward) Fuselage Rib
>>subassembly OR F-1045-Left (Forward) Fuselage Rib and Right (Forward)
>>Fuselage Rib is not allowed." There is no mention of the portion AFT
>>of said components.
>>
>>I interpret that to currently allow the builder to modify the aft
>>portions on F-1044 Center Subassembly towards the PIC at F-1003C-Left,
>>Center and Right from F-1068B Center going AFT on F-1045L and from
>>F-1068B R going AFT on F- 1045 Right would be reasonably acceptable.
>>Meaning that Tim's modification is within the scope of current written
>>instructions on Page 41-2 dated July 21, 2004. Good news for pursuit
>>of 21st Century instruments.
>>
>>I must still be missing something.
>>
>>On a second note: you can certainly read it that way and not pursue
>>room for Chelton, BMA, GRapids or other glass components while keeping
>>the music "On Key". It is a great discussion point and demonstrates
>>the value of this forum.
>>
>>
>>John - $00.02
>>
>>________________________________________ From:
>>owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
>>Dawson-Townsend Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 6:06 PM To:
>>rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
>>
>>Just browsing Chapter 41 of the fuse plans where it says not to remove
>>any material from any of these three ribs . . .
>>
>>TDT
>>
>>
>>________________________________________ From:
>>owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of John W. Cox Sent:
>>Mon 6/13/2005 8:40 PM To: rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RE:
>>RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod Niko, your illustration drives home the point
>>and is most appreciated. However, your illustration shows an actual
>>cut in the lower diagonal edge into four independent and separate
>>elements. Tim's work introduced bends into this (diagonal
>>curved) edge without cuts clear through, which would decrease strength
>>yet his cuts were only on the vertical which were effectively doubled
>>back into the original rib vertical. There must be a computer
>>analysis that could computate the revised doubled design with
>>comparison to the original rib. We could calculate the weight of
>>desired safety components (glass cockpit technology) and the effective
>>arm down to 00.01" then couldn't you derive the lever down force on
>>the instrument face.
>>
>>Am I missing something?
>>
>>The real issue ought to be a mechanism to improve placement of ribs
>>F-1045-L & R along the firewall and incorporate mounting of the
>>instrument panel and sunscreen to give the widest range of
>>ergonomically placed and visually oriented safety equipment. It
>>creates a conundrum on how Lancair was able to mount Randy's stuff so
>>stylishly without engineering compromise.
>>
>>John
>>
>>________________________________________ From:
>>owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos
>>Napoli Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 4:42 PM To:
>>rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
>>
>>Here is how I might make a rib mod. It might be overkill, however,
>>unless I knew what the loads were I would have no choice but to
>>replace the original strength.
>>
>>Niko 40188
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Drilling the actuator |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Can anyone who's drilled that trim actuator (or is it flap) where you
have to put that 1/16" hole in the end for safety wire comment
as to how you drilled the hole? I don't think I'm going to be
able to successfully drill an angled hole and still keep it outside
the nut and have anything left of the corner of that black tube.
So, my plan is to drill straight in the side, and straight down
from the edge around the nut, and meet in the middle.
Any other good suggestions??
Tim
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
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: | Rudder Pedal Placement. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy@abros.com>
Mine are forward and work well. I am also 6.1 and have to move my seat
forward 1 or 2 notches at the most. Randy
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doerr, Ray R
[NTK]
Subject: RV10-List: Rudder Pedal Placement.
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]"
--> <Ray.R.Doerr@mail.sprint.com>
Thank You
Ray Doerr
CDNI Principal Engineer
Sprint PCS
16020 West 113th Street
Lenexa, KS 66219
Mailstop KSLNXK0101
(913) 859-1414 (Office)
(913) 226-0106 (Pcs)
(913) 859-1234 (Fax)
Ray.R.Doerr@mail.sprint.com
use to install your rudder pedals? The forward or aft holes. I'm 6' 1"
tall and would expect to have mine installed in the forward position
which would then require me to create the steel rudder links to the 1"
length instead of the 2 1/4" length if you have them install in the aft
bolting location. The reason I ask is I don't have my finish kit yet
which includes the seats, so I can't try it on for size. I would like
to only have to create these links once. Another question is how much
travel is there in the seat rails?
Thanks Ray Doerr
40250
Getting ready to tackle the fiberglass top.
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: | Drilling the actuator |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy@abros.com>
Tim, I started straight until I could angle the drill bit and it
wouldn't slide out of the hole. I don't remember if I had to make the
second attempt from the other direction or not. It didn't see to be a
big deal. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: RV10-List: Drilling the actuator
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Can anyone who's drilled that trim actuator (or is it flap) where you
have to put that 1/16" hole in the end for safety wire comment as to how
you drilled the hole? I don't think I'm going to be able to
successfully drill an angled hole and still keep it outside the nut and
have anything left of the corner of that black tube.
So, my plan is to drill straight in the side, and straight down from the
edge around the nut, and meet in the middle.
Any other good suggestions??
Tim
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
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: | Drilling the actuator |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr@mail.sprint.com>
Start the drill on one of the flat sides of the nut and once you get it
started, start to angle the drill until it comes out of the side of the
arm.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: RV10-List: Drilling the actuator
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Can anyone who's drilled that trim actuator (or is it flap) where you
have to put that 1/16" hole in the end for safety wire comment
as to how you drilled the hole? I don't think I'm going to be
able to successfully drill an angled hole and still keep it outside
the nut and have anything left of the corner of that black tube.
So, my plan is to drill straight in the side, and straight down
from the edge around the nut, and meet in the middle.
Any other good suggestions??
Tim
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Drilling the actuator |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt@ussynthetic.com>
Tim, that is what I did exactly and it worked out great.
Scott Schmidt
Cell: 801-319-3094
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: RV10-List: Drilling the actuator
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Can anyone who's drilled that trim actuator (or is it flap) where you
have to put that 1/16" hole in the end for safety wire comment
as to how you drilled the hole? I don't think I'm going to be
able to successfully drill an angled hole and still keep it outside
the nut and have anything left of the corner of that black tube.
So, my plan is to drill straight in the side, and straight down
from the edge around the nut, and meet in the middle.
Any other good suggestions??
Tim
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Chelton Sport install |
My original plans called a platform in the rear of the 10 just aft of the batteries.
I now think I can greatly simplify the plumbing by locating the AHRS,ADC
behind the center of the instrument panel. Anybody done this or considering it?
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Making all the mistakes so you don't have to... |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Ok, today I got my banjo fitting from Aircraft Spruce to replace the
stinkin' 3/8" flare fitting on the left branch of the Andair fuel
valve.
Now I can truly say, you're really gonna be hosed if you buy your
valve from Wicks. They don't have an FB20 banjo fitting in
stock. I *thought* the banjo fitting from Aircraft Spruce listed
as being for the Andair valve would be the fix...but they
didn't have a picture. Despite my paying for 2nd day air shipping,
I now find it isn't the same as the one from Wicks...that wouldn't
be in stock anyway.
So, my advice is if you buy the andair valve, buy it from vans,
or order it direct from Andair....I haven't found a resonable way
to fix the issue caused by ordering from Wicks. Tomorrow I'll
have to ship back this stinkin' fitting, and maybe with luck
I can get Andair to ship one direct. The valve is fantastic,
but DO buy it properly.
Tim
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rattle can mystery |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
You can also rotate that "little cap" to modify the spray pattern from a wide fan
to a verticle fan pattern.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Randy, I'm taking that as you don't have one on your plane is that correct. Mark.
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Drilling the actuator |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Thanks guys, I just did the straight down and straight in from the side
thing and it worked out great. Just didn't want to screw it up....last
night I didn't have a 1/16" bit so it was even harder to think about
doing.
Note to list: buy a good 1/16" bit. I've already hit 2 places where
you need one.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
Scott Schmidt wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt@ussynthetic.com>
>
> Tim, that is what I did exactly and it worked out great.
>
> Scott Schmidt
> Cell: 801-319-3094
> sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:13 PM
> To: RV10
> Subject: RV10-List: Drilling the actuator
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> Can anyone who's drilled that trim actuator (or is it flap) where you
> have to put that 1/16" hole in the end for safety wire comment
> as to how you drilled the hole? I don't think I'm going to be
> able to successfully drill an angled hole and still keep it outside
> the nut and have anything left of the corner of that black tube.
> So, my plan is to drill straight in the side, and straight down
> from the edge around the nut, and meet in the middle.
> Any other good suggestions??
>
> Tim
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
d="scan'208"; a="1181889250:sNHT18653636"
| Subject: | Question for Tim - was: Eeerie Paint Coincidence!! |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Byron Gillespie" <bgill1@charter.net>
Tim:
Love the latest sketches from last night - The wife decided that was
design like what she wanted - I may just have to go with the same design
but use the John Deer green as the color - after all we live in South
Georgia :-)
Quick question - on the interior primer are you still using the AKZO
under the PPG? I have been using the AFS waterborne previously on areas
that won't get over painted but I am a little nervous on using it as a
base under a final color. Talked to a PPG rep and he highly recommended
against it (expected that) but gave a recommendation for a PPG
EXP-900/901 epoxy primer and a base. I can get that locally - but have
to order the AKZO.
Always appreciate any and all recommendations.
Byron
Fuselage - RV-10 #40253
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: RV10-List: Eeerie Paint Coincidence!!
Ok, this one caught me off guard for sure!!! Kevin, another
RV-10 builder, pointed me to this photo. Notice that my
N-Number is nearly identical (2 end character difference),
and check out the paint similarity. I love this guy's
paint job. I don't know who's -10 this is, but it
sure is pretty. I guess I should feel very good about my
overall paint scheme.....especially if other people think
along those lines too. Amazing that both my wife and whoever
thought up his design came to very similar design schemes.
Tim
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Question for Tim - was: Eeerie Paint Coincidence!! |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Hey Thanks Byron, you're welcome to use any of the scheme's.
I'm not trying to be a one-and-only...I just like them.
My advice on the primer is this:
I'm not sure what to say about the AFS. You'd be the first
to try it if you do, as far as I know. I've heard that
Epoxy primers get very hard and make it hard to get the
topcoat paints to stick. I got paranoid about this when it
came time to spray because I had sprayed my Akzo over a week
before. So far, it looks very good, but I'm not sure how it
will be in the long run. Also, the Akzo being 2 gallons will
go VERY far. I basically could prime my whole plane inside
on less than 2 kits of Akzo (4 total gallons) and most of that
evaporates away. So, if you buy it now, you're probably going
to have far more than you need.
So, what I'd suggest is buying either the stuff your PPG rep
recommended, or get the PPG DX1791 like Randy used. You'll
be able to use it on the outside too, if you get DX1791, so
you could still get a full gallon....unless maybe Randy disagrees
with that. I don't know the shelf life.
IF you go with an expoxy, be aware that it gets hard though,
and I think the recommendation is that you spray the topcoat
not more than a couple days after you spray the primer.
Ask you PPG guy to explain that, because I'm much less
informed in that area.
If I could do mine all over again, I'd be using DX1791 on the
interior of the fuselage, just like my hero, the great Mr. DeBauw.
I'd still use the Akzo for the wings, tail and all that stuff
though, but Randy's looks far cooler.
Good luck with your spraying...take pictures for us!
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
Byron Gillespie wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Byron Gillespie" <bgill1@charter.net>
>
> Tim:
> Love the latest sketches from last night - The wife decided that was
> design like what she wanted - I may just have to go with the same design
> but use the John Deer green as the color - after all we live in South
> Georgia :-)
>
> Quick question - on the interior primer are you still using the AKZO
> under the PPG? I have been using the AFS waterborne previously on areas
> that won't get over painted but I am a little nervous on using it as a
> base under a final color. Talked to a PPG rep and he highly recommended
> against it (expected that) but gave a recommendation for a PPG
> EXP-900/901 epoxy primer and a base. I can get that locally - but have
> to order the AKZO.
>
> Always appreciate any and all recommendations.
>
> Byron
> Fuselage - RV-10 #40253
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 1:04 PM
> To: RV10
> Subject: RV10-List: Eeerie Paint Coincidence!!
>
> Ok, this one caught me off guard for sure!!! Kevin, another
> RV-10 builder, pointed me to this photo. Notice that my
> N-Number is nearly identical (2 end character difference),
> and check out the paint similarity. I love this guy's
> paint job. I don't know who's -10 this is, but it
> sure is pretty. I guess I should feel very good about my
> overall paint scheme.....especially if other people think
> along those lines too. Amazing that both my wife and whoever
> thought up his design came to very similar design schemes.
>
> Tim
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
I have no concern on Tim's final mod. I am frankly impressed with the
work around and his investment in a complete panel befitting such a fine
design. Guess I will always be one concrete block and one shot bag shy
of a full load.
I did get some local folklore history as to why the rib is in the
center, forces avionics down 1.75" from a safer scan line and puts the
secondary panel so close to new glass do-dads that I want so bad. I
forgot steam gages have never been that deep. My error. Mea Culpa.
Just ole age.
John - $00.2
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Might have been John Cox who had expressed some concerns. Not me. I
already know the radios will fall into your lap as soon as the first 2g
turn
happens!!!!! :-)
John Jessen
(can't get enough of the sound of a rivet being squeezed)
Do not archive
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Out of dumb luck, I'm just over 6'1" too, and I happened to install
my pedals in the forward holes.
BTW, reading your email below, I'm sure it's just mistaken
terminology, but if yours are in the FORWARD holes, you'll
want the longer 2-1/4" links. I might have my seats this weekend,
but either way I'm mounting them in the forward holes. That
way even I may have to scoot my seat up, which will give more
room for the legs of the rear seat passenger.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Doerr, Ray R [NTK] wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr@mail.sprint.com>
>
>
>
> Thank You
> Ray Doerr
> CDNI Principal Engineer
> Sprint PCS
> 16020 West 113th Street
> Lenexa, KS 66219
> Mailstop KSLNXK0101
> (913) 859-1414 (Office)
> (913) 226-0106 (Pcs)
> (913) 859-1234 (Fax)
> Ray.R.Doerr@mail.sprint.com
>
> For the guys already flying their RV-10's, what position did you
> use to install your rudder pedals? The forward or aft holes. I'm 6' 1"
> tall and would expect to have mine installed in the forward position
> which would then require me to create the steel rudder links to the 1"
> length instead of the 2 1/4" length if you have them install in the aft
> bolting location. The reason I ask is I don't have my finish kit yet
> which includes the seats, so I can't try it on for size. I would like
> to only have to create these links once. Another question is how much
> travel is there in the seat rails?
>
> Thanks Ray Doerr
> 40250
> Getting ready to tackle the fiberglass top.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: rudder question |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
Tim, when you riveted the trailing edge of your rudder did you use
Pro-seal> I didn't see any mention of it in your web page write up?
Deems Davis
#40406 finished VS (33 hrs) and on to Rudder. Boy this is a gas! after
getting over some of the fear of riveting, it's really satisfying to
have a completed 'airplane part".
>
>
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! --
|