Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:53 AM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. (richard cannella)
2. 05:06 AM - Re: rudder question (Tim Olson)
3. 05:11 AM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. (Tim Olson)
4. 05:19 AM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. (linn walters)
5. 05:44 AM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. (Gary Specketer)
6. 05:46 AM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. (richard cannella)
7. 05:48 AM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. (Doerr, Ray R [NTK])
8. 06:16 AM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. (richard cannella)
9. 07:28 AM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. (Dj Merrill)
10. 07:39 AM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. (Henkjan van der Zouw)
11. 08:17 AM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. (richard cannella)
12. 08:26 AM - Re: Gascolator (Randy DeBauw)
13. 08:41 AM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. (Randy DeBauw)
14. 09:16 AM - What Alternator is everyone using. (Doerr, Ray R [NTK])
15. 10:05 AM - Re: What Alternator is everyone using. (James Ochs)
16. 12:06 PM - Re: RV-10 Panel Rib modification (Dan Checkoway)
17. 12:26 PM - Photos fro RV QB factory in the Philippines (jdwilson16)
18. 12:48 PM - was: Eeerie Paint Coincidence!! (Jay Brinkmeyer)
19. 01:35 PM - Re: was: Eeerie Paint Coincidence!! (Tim Olson)
20. 05:10 PM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement - Transition training (Marcus Cooper)
21. 05:14 PM - Static Dischargers (Jesse Saint)
22. 05:25 PM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement - Transition training (Sean Stephens)
23. 05:27 PM - Re: Photos fro RV QB factory in the Philippines (Jim Combs)
24. 05:48 PM - Re: was: Eeerie Paint Coincidence!! (Byron Gillespie)
25. 06:16 PM - Re: Static Dischargers (Marcus Cooper)
26. 07:02 PM - Re: Engine (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
27. 07:45 PM - Re: Panel Rib Mod (Chris)
28. 08:14 PM - Re: Panel Rib Mod (Tim Olson)
29. 08:20 PM - Re: Panel Rib Mod (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
30. 08:32 PM - Re: Static Dischargers (John Kirkland)
31. 08:48 PM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement - Transition training (Rick)
32. 08:48 PM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement - Transition training (Rick)
33. 08:48 PM - Re: Rudder Pedal Placement - Transition training (Rick)
34. 08:49 PM - Re: Re: Re: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS (Richard Sipp)
35. 09:23 PM - Re: Re: Re: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS (Mark)
36. 10:14 PM - Re: Re: Re: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS (Tim Olson)
37. 11:23 PM - Build Time (Jeff Carpenter)
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 |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=VHgkVK8JxoHKqiHEUlmhEhC6331S+ERPrf/UB7U1buA3lwA6GKZaN2PDg0hBA2GZOODP6+AjZf0k7bAGqyKTQb/M/08IKK+RCZ1kpRfN+mbugrY4bqIEpm46oDbDDV6L6EhjS4NoPpdTKVhRZCydoSejQz3uviXbue5JLRzQVe0=
;
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: richard cannella <ric52md@yahoo.com>
--- Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
> --> 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.
>
I've been hiding here in the background for months
now. I don't have my PPL but was planning to start in
a month or two(something I've wanted to do for 30
years) and get an RV10 to build next fall. But after
reading everyone's 6'1", I'm beginning to think I'm to
short to be a pilot(5'6"). Will I have to build a
model plane from the local hobby shop to reach the
pedals(and still need a phone book to sit on)????
DO NOT ARCHIVE
__________________________________
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: rudder question |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I used proseal on all of the areas in the plans that called for it
when doing my trailing edges. I applied it, clecoed the edge to that
steel angle "bucking bar" backplate, put a board on top just forward
of the cleocs, and put lots of heavy objects on top. Then I didn't
rivet for at least 1-2 days afterwards, so it had already taken
it's straight set before I tried. I was reminded of this when
Gary Specketer did my inspection this weekend. Even I was surprised
at how straight and nice those trailing edges were.
I know how you feel about finishing a part. I hated to enter the
shop at the beginning of a part, because I can't stand deburring.
But every time I completed one I felt real good. When you
finish the tailcone you really know you have something going, and
the feeling gets bigger and better with the wings.
Keep having fun!
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
Deems Davis wrote:
> --> 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".
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Nah, we're just placing the rudder pedals in the forward most holes
where you mount the brackets that hold them. You'll get a couple
of inches back if you mount them rearward, which is why the link
that you need to create is shorter. And, according to Randy, at
6'1", he only moves his seat forward a notch or two. So you have
tons of adjustment from that perspective too. Also, the seats
apparently raise you up a bit as you move them shorter...or at
least that's what people said many moons ago. So, you'll probably
have no problem at all. Besides that, unless you're a "rounded"
short guy (not trying to insult ya), you've got one thing over
all of us 6'+ guys.....more useful load. :)
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
richard cannella wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: richard cannella <ric52md@yahoo.com>
>
>
>
> --- Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
>
>
>>--> 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.
>>
>
>
> I've been hiding here in the background for months
> now. I don't have my PPL but was planning to start in
> a month or two(something I've wanted to do for 30
> years) and get an RV10 to build next fall. But after
> reading everyone's 6'1", I'm beginning to think I'm to
> short to be a pilot(5'6"). Will I have to build a
> model plane from the local hobby shop to reach the
> pedals(and still need a phone book to sit on)????
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
> http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
richard cannella wrote:
>I've been hiding here in the background for months now.
>
Knew you were there .... just couldn't see you. You're good! :-D
>I don't have my PPL but was planning to start in
>a month or two(something I've wanted to do for 30
>years) and get an RV10 to build next fall.
>
What a nifty plan. Musta cought the disease as a kid. Many of us are
infected although it's easy to spot us when we're out amongst the
masses. Look for folks telling long stories and waving their arms in
the air .... with huge smiles. May have multiple bandaids.
> But after reading everyone's 6'1", I'm beginning to think I'm to
>short to be a pilot(5'6").
>
Fortunately, most of us aren't built like basketball players. Just
picture one of them in my S-1 Pitts!!! I'm 5'10" and it's cramped!!!
> Will I have to build a
>model plane from the local hobby shop to reach the
>pedals(and still need a phone book to sit on)????
>
What a concept! If you haven't built a model airplane yet, go get one
and build it while you're going after your ticket. Work on it every
night. Eat dinner really quick so you can get to work on it. Invite
your like-minded friends to come over and help. Great friends are ones
with prior building experience and tools. Read the plans thoroughly 5
or 6 times before glueing anything together. Play particular attention
to the orientation of pieces on the left side. Right sides are usually
mirror images. Mark them with words like "front", "rear", "up", "down".
"LS" and "RS" ..... sometimes using all of them on one piece. All this
won't help you get your PPL, but it will help you (and prepare your
family) for your extended absences from family life when you disappear
into your 'workshop' (whatever it may be) for extended periods of time.
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
You're a quick learner. Many 'old timers' on this list forget that.
Must be the 'old' part! ;-)
Welcome to the club.
Oh yes, your question: We don't use phone books .... it's the weight
penalty thingy. Pillows are in. And adjustable ergonomics fit the
bill. Not to worry. Your wife (if you have one) won't miss a few pillows.
Linn .... they poured the slab for my workshop yesterday. Construction
can start on Monday. YEEHA!!!
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
>http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Rudder Pedal Placement. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Gary Specketer" <speckter@comcast.net>
When I built my first plane in the '80's I had a problem finding a
design that would accommodate my 6' 4" frame. Now it is fairly easy to
find models that will haul us big guys up. Life is good.
Gary
-----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: Rudder Pedal Placement.
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Nah, we're just placing the rudder pedals in the forward most holes
where you mount the brackets that hold them. You'll get a couple of
inches back if you mount them rearward, which is why the link that you
need to create is shorter. And, according to Randy, at 6'1", he only
moves his seat forward a notch or two. So you have tons of adjustment
from that perspective too. Also, the seats apparently raise you up a
bit as you move them shorter...or at least that's what people said many
moons ago. So, you'll probably have no problem at all. Besides that,
unless you're a "rounded" short guy (not trying to insult ya), you've
got one thing over all of us 6'+ guys.....more useful load. :)
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
richard cannella wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: richard cannella <ric52md@yahoo.com>
>
>
>
> --- Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
>
>
>>--> 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.
>>
>
>
> I've been hiding here in the background for months
> now. I don't have my PPL but was planning to start in
> a month or two(something I've wanted to do for 30
> years) and get an RV10 to build next fall. But after
> reading everyone's 6'1", I'm beginning to think I'm to
> short to be a pilot(5'6"). Will I have to build a
> model plane from the local hobby shop to reach the
> pedals(and still need a phone book to sit on)????
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check
it out!
> http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=2bx0jJ89CxQoflZokZn67Pa3CactG5oXTlcVUpS42vgcdDmmbZkHtLMxmCsFvAdQoNrIomhx7T1ANoM0Wu5xd4MUf1W1azJ9kANrh2GL0k9ky31E9bHxTIuoLlp9qYnzsRwLBwoUUdpCz6+pj/JETyiwL5tsnRJ+O0ewOPr9k7k=
;
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: richard cannella <ric52md@yahoo.com>
Thanks. Not "rounded"....yet, and trying to stay that
way. I figured it was just pedal adjustments. Should
have plenty of useful load, I'm only 145 and my wife
only weighs 118. Now I just have to learn how to fly.
Filling out the medical now.
Ric
--- Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson
> <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> Nah, we're just placing the rudder pedals in the
> forward most holes
> where you mount the brackets that hold them. You'll
> get a couple
> of inches back if you mount them rearward, which is
> why the link
> that you need to create is shorter. And, according
> to Randy, at
> 6'1", he only moves his seat forward a notch or two.
> So you have
> tons of adjustment from that perspective too. Also,
> the seats
> apparently raise you up a bit as you move them
> shorter...or at
> least that's what people said many moons ago. So,
> you'll probably
> have no problem at all. Besides that, unless you're
> a "rounded"
> short guy (not trying to insult ya), you've got one
> thing over
> all of us 6'+ guys.....more useful load. :)
>
> Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
> Current project: Fuselage
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> richard cannella wrote:
> > --> RV10-List message posted by: richard cannella
> <ric52md@yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>--> 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.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I've been hiding here in the background for months
> > now. I don't have my PPL but was planning to
> start in
> > a month or two(something I've wanted to do for 30
> > years) and get an RV10 to build next fall. But
> after
> > reading everyone's 6'1", I'm beginning to think
> I'm to
> > short to be a pilot(5'6"). Will I have to build a
> > model plane from the local hobby shop to reach the
> > pedals(and still need a phone book to sit on)????
> >
> > DO NOT ARCHIVE
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for
> the weekend. Check it out!
> > http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Rudder Pedal Placement. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr@mail.sprint.com>
Thanks guys. And Tim your right, I said that wrong. The 2 1/4" links
are require if you use the forward mounting holes because the cables
need to be lengthened.
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
-----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: 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 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 |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=vmp2cYIVrcDIwN2AgdlI/mTvG4LjSyLg5pkZ7eH2QGCRkWED4swvHeO6ACRRghiaHqxjfRIyiP1PHR0n8kD+yx6fuSuccbpfGDlwAg2Sv4Y27dCSeh+5mVoOzVf8wzVmQtLUGwg/jMXb+2PKox4IozzgKbXP7NEv122a67uVSAw=
;
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: richard cannella <ric52md@yahoo.com>
--- linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: linn walters
> <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
>
>> What a nifty plan. Musta cought the disease as a
> kid. Many of us are
> infected although it's easy to spot us when we're
> out amongst the
> masses. Look for folks telling long stories and
> waving their arms in
> the air .... with huge smiles. May have multiple
> bandaids.
Yeah I got the disease, just had a long gestation
period and a first wife the kept saying no. Had to
get rid of her( really she got rid of me but I like to
think of it the other eay around ;-). New wife is
super supportive. At least I think so. I keep
pointing planes and "want one, want one", she says
"Dah, dah, ok". She's Russian, maybe she won't figure
it out until after it's too late.
Really thought the -9A was a better fit but she's
insisting on the -10....poor me :-(
Ric
> > DO NOT ARCHIVE
__________________________________
http://discover.yahoo.com/
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Pedal Placement. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
richard cannella wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: richard cannella <ric52md@yahoo.com>
>
> Thanks. Not "rounded"....yet, and trying to stay that
> way. I figured it was just pedal adjustments. Should
> have plenty of useful load, I'm only 145 and my wife
> only weighs 118. Now I just have to learn how to fly.
> Filling out the medical now.
>
> Ric
Hi Ric,
Flying is the easy part. It is all the darned
regs you have to know that is the hard part... *grin*
Just kidding - welcome to the club! It is a lifelong
addiction, and you'll love it!
-Dj
do not archive
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Rudder Pedal Placement. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Henkjan van der Zouw" <henkjan@zme.nl>
I'm almost in the same situation!, that means in the background for
months, no PPL, 1 meter 76, wanted it for 40 years!.
Purchased an RV10 kit (40355) in February and started building May 21th,
i'm living in The Netherlands (the small country in Europe) were
building an aircraft is not a common thing to do.
Hope to meet some of you someday, maybe difficult because of the big
ocean in between, I was following the race for first flight every day
and viewed Randy's and Tim's site a lot as well as the great movies.
Have to come over to the US again in the future after getting my PPL to
do a transition course on th RV10 somewhere, it seems a lot safer to me
tobe instructed how to fly a 10 by someone experienced, any volunteers?.
Regards
Henkjan van der Zouw
DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] Namens richard cannella
Verzonden: donderdag 16 juni 2005 13:53
Aan: rv10-list@matronics.com
Onderwerp: Re: RV10-List: Rudder Pedal Placement.
--> RV10-List message posted by: richard cannella <ric52md@yahoo.com>
--- Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
> --> 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.
>
I've been hiding here in the background for months
now. I don't have my PPL but was planning to start in
a month or two(something I've wanted to do for 30
years) and get an RV10 to build next fall. But after
reading everyone's 6'1", I'm beginning to think I'm to
short to be a pilot(5'6"). Will I have to build a
model plane from the local hobby shop to reach the
pedals(and still need a phone book to sit on)????
DO NOT ARCHIVE
__________________________________
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it
out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
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 |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=x3YeLNQuysBAIVDxJZ1mhcoWkr5pt4bqLf1+RiGMn9OOrnY9hcJKjhrqKJuVgrHW/TYkdTkCVDBTOtjcj3bFmLdRdGgyM8xLFnHrBIZzVlushZA2ZncMvBS3Y4d+GzREl5zuDZ2u1YIDLegdvTIc3m3i9axfxdjx/Ig9U0Ofu1s=
;
| Subject: | Rudder Pedal Placement. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: richard cannella <ric52md@yahoo.com>
At least I'm not alone. I've seen this group give
lots of support over the months. I'm sure I'll be
needing it when the times comes.
I lived for a short time( 6 months ) in Amsterdam
while working in Hilversum. Loved it.
Ric
--- Henkjan van der Zouw <henkjan@zme.nl> wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Henkjan van der
> Zouw" <henkjan@zme.nl>
>
> I'm almost in the same situation!, that means in the
.........
>
> Regards
>
> Henkjan van der Zouw
>
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] Namens
> richard cannella
> Verzonden: donderdag 16 juni 2005 13:53
> Aan: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Onderwerp: Re: RV10-List: Rudder Pedal Placement.
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: richard cannella
> <ric52md@yahoo.com>
>
>
>
> --- Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
>
> > --> 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.
> >
>
> I've been hiding here in the background for months
> now. I don't have my PPL but was planning to start
> in
> a month or two(something I've wanted to do for 30
> years) and get an RV10 to build next fall. But
> after
> reading everyone's 6'1", I'm beginning to think I'm
> to
> short to be a pilot(5'6"). Will I have to build a
> model plane from the local hobby shop to reach the
> pedals(and still need a phone book to sit on)????
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for
> the weekend. Check it
> out!
> http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
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 |
|
Correct. I don't have one. I currently don't know of any 10's using
them. Randy
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Chamberlain
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Gascolator
Randy, I'm taking that as you don't have one on your plane is that
correct. Mark.
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: | Rudder Pedal Placement. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy@abros.com>
Don't think that you will have a problem at all. Infact the seat
adjustment on the 10 has about 8 or 9 notches. I can fly with the seat
all the way back or in my preferred position of 2 notches forward from
the rear. That must leave 6 to 7 inches of additional forward motion on
the seat. And because of the design the seat rises as it moves
forward. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of richard
cannella
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rudder Pedal Placement.
--> RV10-List message posted by: richard cannella <ric52md@yahoo.com>
--- Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
> --> 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.
>
I've been hiding here in the background for months
now. I don't have my PPL but was planning to start in
a month or two(something I've wanted to do for 30
years) and get an RV10 to build next fall. But after
reading everyone's 6'1", I'm beginning to think I'm to
short to be a pilot(5'6"). Will I have to build a
model plane from the local hobby shop to reach the
pedals(and still need a phone book to sit on)????
DO NOT ARCHIVE
__________________________________
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it
out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
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: | What Alternator is everyone using. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr@mail.sprint.com>
I'm trying to figure out if I should delete the Van's Alternator
from the firewall forward kit and buy the one for AeroSport Power or
just use the one from Van's. Can anyone explain what they did as why.
I want to order the Firewall Forward Kit in a few weeks and I am trying
to figure out what to delete or add with this order.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
40250
Fininshed Fuse Brake and Fuel Line, next up Flap mechanism.
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: What Alternator is everyone using. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: James Ochs <jochs@froody.org>
Hi Ray,
In addition to what people who have put alternators on their 10's
already, there was a very long and detailed discussion around
alternators on the matronics aeroelectric list that might have some
useful information in the archives...
James
Doerr, Ray R [NTK] wrote:
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr@mail.sprint.com>
>
> I'm trying to figure out if I should delete the Van's Alternator
>from the firewall forward kit and buy the one for AeroSport Power or
>just use the one from Van's. Can anyone explain what they did as why.
>I want to order the Firewall Forward Kit in a few weeks and I am trying
>to figure out what to delete or add with this order.
>
>
>Thank You
>Ray Doerr
>40250
>Fininshed Fuse Brake and Fuel Line, next up Flap mechanism.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
There is an art . . . to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself
at the ground and miss. Douglas Adams, 'The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy'
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Panel Rib modification |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> 5 threads means the bolt is toooooo long
It also means you've bottomed the nut out onto the SHANK of the bolt, and
the proper tension is NOT being applied.
The standard of one-to-three threads showing ensures that (a) the nut is
properly engaged and the self-locking feature has enough surface to work
properly, and (b) most importantly, that the nut is not bottomed out on the
shank of the bolt.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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: | Photos fro RV QB factory in the Philippines |
0.00 HTML_NONELEMENT_00_10 BODY: 0% to 10% of HTML elements are non-standard
Mickey, an RV-8 builder from Switzerland had photos from the Quick Build
factory and I thought you may be interested. Jay
http://www.rv8.ch/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=bonanza
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 |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=L8shORYXXQ3GpWz6HRIcPzLLdO5NIYimP10CrUUbP6naANE9PHT6C3wfn1ytJ/rxbM6BvPBUkqYL8mEJzJdTsY82Qiy/18WSTGxEmV7ysi5GhhMoN9sSjertTydD/LC3AjzoenaYnTX8bxf0+UEIBOt3MBuuUZiKPebu8vCOjbA=
;
| Subject: | was: Eeerie Paint Coincidence!! |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
I've been using AFS... It works fine and is easy to spray and cleanup.
Jay
Time: 05:45:04 PM PST US
From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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. <snip>
__________________________________
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html
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: was: Eeerie Paint Coincidence!! |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Jay,
Have you used the AFS *under* the painted surface? I think Byron's
worried about how the primer will work as a primer for paint, not
just as a protective primer. I haven't heard of anyone yet using
it through the entire project...if you have, your input would be
great to have on how compatible it is with other paints for
that use.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Jay Brinkmeyer wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
>
> I've been using AFS... It works fine and is easy to spray and cleanup.
>
> Jay
>
> Time: 05:45:04 PM PST US
> From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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. <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out!
> http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 - Transition training |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
Henkjan,
Welcome to the RV-10 world, I hope your project goes well. It sure is
nice to have so much information on the internet so long distance questions
aren't much of a problem. I've spent a lot of time looking at Tim Olson's
website for details on what to do.
I spent a month over in Giles Rijen (sorry if it's misspelled) back around
1995 flying the F-117 and loved it over there. The whole country is
spectacular and we were treated very well (except for the billion-candlewatt
lightbulbs going off on short final as we were landing ;) ).
It seems I read someone is specifically building their RV-10 to do
transition training but I don't remember who. I vaguely remember it being
someone who had a RV-6 also doing transition training. I'd recommend
looking in the archives for information.
Marcus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Henkjan van der
Zouw
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rudder Pedal Placement.
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Henkjan van der Zouw" <henkjan@zme.nl>
I'm almost in the same situation!, that means in the background for
months, no PPL, 1 meter 76, wanted it for 40 years!.
Purchased an RV10 kit (40355) in February and started building May 21th,
i'm living in The Netherlands (the small country in Europe) were
building an aircraft is not a common thing to do.
Hope to meet some of you someday, maybe difficult because of the big
ocean in between, I was following the race for first flight every day
and viewed Randy's and Tim's site a lot as well as the great movies.
Have to come over to the US again in the future after getting my PPL to
do a transition course on th RV10 somewhere, it seems a lot safer to me
tobe instructed how to fly a 10 by someone experienced, any volunteers?.
Regards
Henkjan van der Zouw
DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] Namens richard cannella
Verzonden: donderdag 16 juni 2005 13:53
Aan: rv10-list@matronics.com
Onderwerp: Re: RV10-List: Rudder Pedal Placement.
--> RV10-List message posted by: richard cannella <ric52md@yahoo.com>
--- Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
> --> 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.
>
I've been hiding here in the background for months
now. I don't have my PPL but was planning to start in
a month or two(something I've wanted to do for 30
years) and get an RV10 to build next fall. But after
reading everyone's 6'1", I'm beginning to think I'm to
short to be a pilot(5'6"). Will I have to build a
model plane from the local hobby shop to reach the
pedals(and still need a phone book to sit on)????
DO NOT ARCHIVE
__________________________________
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it
out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Static Dischargers |
Any thoughts on the need for static dischargers?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Pedal Placement - Transition training |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
Alex De Dominicis is building a -10 for training...
<http://www.rvtraining.com/>
-Sean #40303 ailerons
Marcus Cooper wrote:
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>
>Henkjan,
> Welcome to the RV-10 world, I hope your project goes well. It sure is
>nice to have so much information on the internet so long distance questions
>aren't much of a problem. I've spent a lot of time looking at Tim Olson's
>website for details on what to do.
>
>I spent a month over in Giles Rijen (sorry if it's misspelled) back around
>1995 flying the F-117 and loved it over there. The whole country is
>spectacular and we were treated very well (except for the billion-candlewatt
>lightbulbs going off on short final as we were landing ;) ).
>
>It seems I read someone is specifically building their RV-10 to do
>transition training but I don't remember who. I vaguely remember it being
>someone who had a RV-6 also doing transition training. I'd recommend
>looking in the archives for information.
>
>Marcus
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Henkjan van der
>Zouw
>Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:45 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Rudder Pedal Placement.
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Henkjan van der Zouw" <henkjan@zme.nl>
>
>I'm almost in the same situation!, that means in the background for
>months, no PPL, 1 meter 76, wanted it for 40 years!.
>Purchased an RV10 kit (40355) in February and started building May 21th,
>i'm living in The Netherlands (the small country in Europe) were
>building an aircraft is not a common thing to do.
>Hope to meet some of you someday, maybe difficult because of the big
>ocean in between, I was following the race for first flight every day
>and viewed Randy's and Tim's site a lot as well as the great movies.
>Have to come over to the US again in the future after getting my PPL to
>do a transition course on th RV10 somewhere, it seems a lot safer to me
>tobe instructed how to fly a 10 by someone experienced, any volunteers?.
>
>Regards
>
>Henkjan van der Zouw
>
>
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>Van: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] Namens richard cannella
>Verzonden: donderdag 16 juni 2005 13:53
>Aan: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Onderwerp: Re: RV10-List: Rudder Pedal Placement.
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: richard cannella <ric52md@yahoo.com>
>
>
>--- Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>I've been hiding here in the background for months
>now. I don't have my PPL but was planning to start in
>a month or two(something I've wanted to do for 30
>years) and get an RV10 to build next fall. But after
>reading everyone's 6'1", I'm beginning to think I'm to
>short to be a pilot(5'6"). Will I have to build a
>model plane from the local hobby shop to reach the
>pedals(and still need a phone book to sit on)????
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it
>out!
>http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Photos fro RV QB factory in the Philippines |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jim Combs" <jimc@mail.infra-read.com>
Here is their web site
http://www.bonanzametalcrafters.com/
They used to have a picture of an RV-10 on the home page, but that got replaced.
Enjoy, Jim Combs
#40192, Fuselage
N312F Reserved
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "jdwilson16" <jdwilson16@cox.net>
Mickey, an RV-8 builder from Switzerland had photos from the Quick Build
factory and I thought you may be interested. Jay
http://www.rv8.ch/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=bonanza
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 |
|
d="scan'208"; a="1010733710:sNHT40935804"
| Subject: | was: Eeerie Paint Coincidence!! |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Byron Gillespie" <bgill1@charter.net>
Thanks for the replies guys:
That is where I am. I have used the AFS through the tail and into the
fuselage but became a little concerned about mixing the top coat with
the water based primer. So far I have been well pleased with the AFS -
handles real well and appears to hold up well - but haven't tried
painting over it. I hate to find out 3-4 years down the road that I made
a big mistake in choices.
I may wind up using the recommended PPG primer for the parts that will
be visible and get over coated - just to be safe. Not 100% sure - but
leaning in that direction.
Byron
More dimpling on bottom fuselage skins - #40253
-----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: was: Eeerie Paint Coincidence!!
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Jay,
Have you used the AFS *under* the painted surface? I think Byron's
worried about how the primer will work as a primer for paint, not
just as a protective primer. I haven't heard of anyone yet using
it through the entire project...if you have, your input would be
great to have on how compatible it is with other paints for
that use.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Jay Brinkmeyer wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer
<jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
>
> I've been using AFS... It works fine and is easy to spray and cleanup.
>
> Jay
>
> Time: 05:45:04 PM PST US
> From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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. <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out!
> http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Static Dischargers |
I remembered seeing a long thread on this a while ago and finally found it
on the Yahoo Group (haven't looked there for a while, maybe I should).
Anyway, here is a clip from two messages posted that might be helpful. You
might want to go there and do a search for static wicks for more info.
Marcus
From: Paul Besing <pbesing@...>
Subject: Electric Bob on Static Wicks
Here is Bob's response on static wicks. Read it and draw your own
conclusions. Perhaps if some
enterprising individual can come up with a kit of wicks that have proper
types/placements.
Static wicks have nothing to do with radio quality or reliability.
EVERY time dissimilar materials slide across each other, there is
a tendency for one material with a stronger affinity for electrons
than the other to acquire a negative charge. Common manifestations
include sparks that jump between fingertip and doorknob after
walking across carpet. In the winter especially, I have to remind
myself to keep part of my body touching the frame of my 1" vertical
belt stander while sculpting a piece of metal . . . the Van DeGraff
like nature of the belt sander will charge the ol' bod with a
significant kick if I don't bleed it off during the sanding operations.
Precipitation static is unique to airborne particles sliding past
any conductor. Radio receivers can be severely affected by dust
storms usually associated with high winds. I used to work with
an amateur radio repeater installation 1200 feet up on KTVH-TV
in Hutchinson, KS. A blowing snow storm would severely de-sense
our receivers. Airplanes have unique problems in that they generate
their own wind. Airplanes flying through dust, rain or
snow can pick up significant charges. When the charge reaches
sufficient magnitude, it begins to form coronas at the sharp
(usually trailing edges) of wings and flight control surfaces.
The static wick is a sharp-ended conductor (enhances tendency
for charge to concentrate and form corona) connected to the
airframe through some nominal but rather high resistance. The
idea is to put sufficient static wicks in the right places
so that they force lots of small, low current discharges to form
and dissipate the energy at much lower (read less noisy)
levels than if the wicks were not present.
The faster the airplane flies, the more likely it is to
experience the effects of p-static. Further, the finish
and skin materials have an influence on tendency to build
and concentrate static charges. These effects are present
and potentially troublesome irrespective of the vintage
of radios carried aboard the airplane.
VHF radios are less susceptible than HF or ADF receivers. Grounded antennas
are quieter than
isolated antennas. There are some modern digital signal processing
techniques that can reduce the audible effects of
p-static but ultimately, locally generated static noises will overwhelm a
receiver looking for weaker
signals.
The number, style and placement of static wicks on our bizjets is as much an
art as a science. We spent
a great deal of $time$ selecting the right products and installations.
Further, there's a comprehensive
incoming inspection of static wicks . . . seems that a performance of a
static wick is very sensitive to
production variability.
If your airplane suffers from the effects of p-static, it may take a lot of
effort over a long period of
time to deduce the optimum solution.
Bob . . .
Here is some further correspondance that I had with
Bob Nuckolls:
>As always, your responses are detailed and helpful.
Thanks again for taking
>the time to respond. I gather from your response,
that for the experimental
>airplane, randomly installing static wicks on control
surfaces probably
>wouldn't do as much benefit?
Just no way to tell. You have to start some place. The BIG
problem with deducing static wick effectiveness is quantification. It's
nearly impossible to duplicate
both conditions that produce the noise and very difficult to
gage magnitude of the noise. I'll ask around out at RAC
and see if I can get some first hand guidance from folks
who have done this.
In any case, if you've had a problem at some point in time
it certainly doesn't hurt to try SOMETHING. It may be
"pink elephant" repellant (haven't seen any pink elephants
around here in a long time . . . it must be working!), or
it may just do the trick. The hard part is knowing when
you've truly done a good thing. Fortunately, our customers
fly around in p-static territory with some regularity . . .
we get feedback pretty fast. If I were to task you with
a development program to optimize the wicks installation
on an RV, just how would you go about it?
Let me see what the pros have to say.
Bob . . .
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Subject: RV10-List: Static Dischargers
Any thoughts on the need for static dischargers?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
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 |
|
New engine possibility?
http://www.eagleengines.com/XTREEM%20540.htm
Got it from EAA news . . .
TDT
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Marcus Cooper
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Static Dischargers
I remembered seeing a long thread on this a while ago and finally found it on the
Yahoo Group (haven't looked there for a while, maybe I should). Anyway, here
is a clip from two messages posted that might be helpful. You might want
to go there and do a search for static wicks for more info.
Marcus
From: Paul Besing <pbesing@...>
Subject: Electric Bob on Static Wicks
Here is Bob's response on static wicks. Read it and draw your own conclusions.
Perhaps if some
enterprising individual can come up with a kit of wicks that have proper types/placements.
Static wicks have nothing to do with radio quality or reliability.
EVERY time dissimilar materials slide across each other, there is
a tendency for one material with a stronger affinity for electrons
than the other to acquire a negative charge. Common manifestations
include sparks that jump between fingertip and doorknob after
walking across carpet. In the winter especially, I have to remind
myself to keep part of my body touching the frame of my 1" vertical
belt stander while sculpting a piece of metal . . . the Van DeGraff
like nature of the belt sander will charge the ol' bod with a
significant kick if I don't bleed it off during the sanding operations.
Precipitation static is unique to airborne particles sliding past
any conductor. Radio receivers can be severely affected by dust
storms usually associated with high winds. I used to work with
an amateur radio repeater installation 1200 feet up on KTVH-TV
in Hutchinson, KS. A blowing snow storm would severely de-sense
our receivers. Airplanes have unique problems in that they generate
their own wind. Airplanes flying through dust, rain or
snow can pick up significant charges. When the charge reaches
sufficient magnitude, it begins to form coronas at the sharp
(usually trailing edges) of wings and flight control surfaces.
The static wick is a sharp-ended conductor (enhances tendency
for charge to concentrate and form corona) connected to the
airframe through some nominal but rather high resistance. The
idea is to put sufficient static wicks in the right places
so that they force lots of small, low current discharges to form
and dissipate the energy at much lower (read less noisy)
levels than if the wicks were not present.
The faster the airplane flies, the more likely it is to
experience the effects of p-static. Further, the finish
and skin materials have an influence on tendency to build
and concentrate static charges. These effects are present
and potentially troublesome irrespective of the vintage
of radios carried aboard the airplane.
VHF radios are less susceptible than HF or ADF receivers. Grounded antennas are
quieter than
isolated antennas. There are some modern digital signal processing techniques that
can reduce the audible effects of
p-static but ultimately, locally generated static noises will overwhelm a receiver
looking for weaker
signals.
The number, style and placement of static wicks on our bizjets is as much an art
as a science. We spent
a great deal of $time$ selecting the right products and installations. Further,
there's a comprehensive
incoming inspection of static wicks . . . seems that a performance of a static
wick is very sensitive to
production variability.
If your airplane suffers from the effects of p-static, it may take a lot of effort
over a long period of
time to deduce the optimum solution.
Bob . . .
Here is some further correspondance that I had with
Bob Nuckolls:
>As always, your responses are detailed and helpful.
Thanks again for taking
>the time to respond. I gather from your response,
that for the experimental
>airplane, randomly installing static wicks on control
surfaces probably
>wouldn't do as much benefit?
Just no way to tell. You have to start some place. The BIG
problem with deducing static wick effectiveness is quantification. It's nearly
impossible to duplicate
both conditions that produce the noise and very difficult to
gage magnitude of the noise. I'll ask around out at RAC
and see if I can get some first hand guidance from folks
who have done this.
In any case, if you've had a problem at some point in time
it certainly doesn't hurt to try SOMETHING. It may be
"pink elephant" repellant (haven't seen any pink elephants
around here in a long time . . . it must be working!), or
it may just do the trick. The hard part is knowing when
you've truly done a good thing. Fortunately, our customers
fly around in p-static territory with some regularity . . .
we get feedback pretty fast. If I were to task you with
a development program to optimize the wicks installation
on an RV, just how would you go about it?
Let me see what the pros have to say.
Bob . . .
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Subject: RV10-List: Static Dischargers
Any thoughts on the need for static dischargers?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel Rib Mod |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Chris" <toaster73@earthlink.net>
I'll keep this thread going. I am still on the wings until October probably.
Slow build all the way. I have not really looked at how all this area goes
together but could it perhaps be the intention of the designer (Van's) to be
part of a "crumple zone" such that any over design will impart too much
force thereby not letting the panel give when you hit it in a crash? Maybe
they want it only "so" strong.
Chris Lucas
#40072
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
> --> 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
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:07 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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 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: | Re: Panel Rib Mod |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I thought about that too. I would suppose it's possible. I don't
know that this mod really changes the overall structure all that much.
I can tell you one thing I'd sure hate from a safety perspective,
if there ever were a crash....that glareshield. Whereas my
Sundowner has a vertical metal panel, and a plastic type glareshield
that comes over the top of the panel with a rounded front, the
RV-10 has a nice meat-carving piece of flat aluminum for you to
put through your cranium. Luckily if you use 4 or 5 point harnesses,
you're probably not all that likely to get your head all the way
to the panel anyway.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Chris wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Chris" <toaster73@earthlink.net>
>
> I'll keep this thread going. I am still on the wings until October
> probably. Slow build all the way. I have not really looked at how all
> this area goes together but could it perhaps be the intention of the
> designer (Van's) to be part of a "crumple zone" such that any over
> design will impart too much force thereby not letting the panel give
> when you hit it in a crash? Maybe they want it only "so" strong.
>
> Chris Lucas
> #40072
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:05 PM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
>
>
>> --> 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
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:07 PM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> 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 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 |
|
Chris:
Let's let this thread die. I think it's been beat enough this week.
How 'bout them Red Sox? (hmm - Maybe we should paint portraits of David Ortiz
and Johnny Damon on the side of our plane . . .)
TDT
40025
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Chris
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Chris" <toaster73@earthlink.net>
I'll keep this thread going. I am still on the wings until October probably.
Slow build all the way. I have not really looked at how all this area goes
together but could it perhaps be the intention of the designer (Van's) to be
part of a "crumple zone" such that any over design will impart too much
force thereby not letting the panel give when you hit it in a crash? Maybe
they want it only "so" strong.
Chris Lucas
#40072
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Panel Rib Mod
> --> 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
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:07 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Static Dischargers |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Kirkland" <jskirkland@webpipe.net>
Yes. I had Dayton-Granger think about static dischargers for the RV-10. Call
them at (954) 463-3451 and ask for Bill Senneff. He is an applications
engineer that worked out a placement for the RV-10. Ask him to send you
drawing #701558, Discharger Installation Diagram Vans Aircraft RV-10. The
discharger they recommend is 16165, cheapest price is Styles Logistics
selling via skygeek.com for $37.50 with free shipping. Aircraft Spruce can't
beat that. I'll try to scan it in when I'm not rivering and see is Tim can
put it on his website.
John Kirkland, PE
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
#40333 N540XP
Jesse Saint writes:
> Any thoughts on the need for static dischargers?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Jesse Saint
>
> I-TEC, Inc.
>
> jesse@itecusa.org
>
> www.itecusa.org
>
> W: 352-465-4545
>
> C: 352-427-0285
>
> F: 815-377-3694
>
>
>
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: Rudder Pedal Placement - Transition training |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Marcus,
Flashbulbs went off on F-117 on final here too...cept it got you a trip to the
pokey......but that was late at night in the desert prior to 1988.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Pedal Placement - Transition training |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Marcus,
Flashbulbs went off on F-117 on final here too...cept it got you a trip to the
pokey......but that was late at night in the desert prior to 1988.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
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: Rudder Pedal Placement - Transition training |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Marcus,
Flashbulbs went off on F-117 on final here too...cept it got you a trip to the
pokey......but that was late at night in the desert prior to 1988.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
b=ZsiDH4XVEsfAkoieuQnActakJ7eSjiZkTtWxV9WQTdNQ/2mlqqoSSQajFFhIKng2;
| Subject: | Re: RE: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net>
Ditto the great information coming from this thread. I asked (one of the
Chelton Flight instructors I think it was) if the Chelton could follow an
externally edited flight plan, I.E. Garmin 480 and was told that was not
possible and that the Chelton would only follow an internally generated
flight plan. Vic, your information seems to indicate that with the correct
switching it may be possible.
My concern remains complex switchology that can lead to problems in single
pilot IFR. Believe me, even in very expensive 2 pilot automated cockpits
with well trained crews confusion over what the airplane is doing can very
quickly become an issue. The test is: can you easily load a new approach a
mile or two out from the FAP. (I heard this clearance issued to flight
today) If you had to do this on both the Chelton and the 480 you would be
busy to say the least. I still favor the Chelton by far, but am looking for
ways to simplify the panel and autopilot operation. Vic's suggestion to
hard wire an OBS indicator to an SL30 or 480 is a good one in my opinion.
Dick Sipp
#40065
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 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: RE: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS |
Tim,
I spent the last few hours reading the information manual on Chelton's website.
It seems that the Chelton units have all of the data that one would need, except
the com. Just curious, why did you elect to go with the GNS-480? With all
of the approaches, freqs and data in the Chelton box, it seems you could get
by really well with a dual SL-30 installation, or an SL-30 + SL-40. Am I missing
something? Does the G480 give you vertical steering for the autopilot for
GPS approaches? I would really like to have the ability to have AP vertical
guidance for non-precision approaches. The Chelton will give HITS vertical
guidance, but will not drive an AP vertically for non-precision approaches. From
what I can tell, the BlueMountain and the GRT units don't have approaches
in the database so these probably won't have this either. This may change with
the BMA unit as they are incorporating a Jep database into their software.
I am a gadget/electronics freak and I LOVE all of this new capability we have,
but it gets confusing!
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Sipp
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: RE: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net>
Ditto the great information coming from this thread. I asked (one of the
Chelton Flight instructors I think it was) if the Chelton could follow an
externally edited flight plan, I.E. Garmin 480 and was told that was not
possible and that the Chelton would only follow an internally generated
flight plan. Vic, your information seems to indicate that with the correct
switching it may be possible.
My concern remains complex switchology that can lead to problems in single
pilot IFR. Believe me, even in very expensive 2 pilot automated cockpits
with well trained crews confusion over what the airplane is doing can very
quickly become an issue. The test is: can you easily load a new approach a
mile or two out from the FAP. (I heard this clearance issued to flight
today) If you had to do this on both the Chelton and the 480 you would be
busy to say the least. I still favor the Chelton by far, but am looking for
ways to simplify the panel and autopilot operation. Vic's suggestion to
hard wire an OBS indicator to an SL30 or 480 is a good one in my opinion.
Dick Sipp
#40065
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 =93VNAV guidance for the A/P.=94
>> > 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 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: RE: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I got the GNS480 mainly for a couple small reasons. 1) I like
gadgets and cool screens and stuff. 2) It can provide real
WAAS capability legally. 3) It has that built-in HSI page.
You're absolutely correct that it's probably overkill.
I think a SL30/SL30 or SL30/SL40 combo would be fantastic
for 95+% of the flying.
As for your comments regarding the Chelton driving the
AP vertically for non-precision approaches, I'm assuming
that this would not be the case....I can't imagine ANYTHING
driving an AP vertically on a NON-precision approach. If
it has the Vnav stuff for the approach in it's database, then
yes I'd think it *should* be able to do that. From what
I can tell, there aren't any other uncertified EFIS units out
there that you could use to fly that vertical guidance anyway
while coupled with the autopilot (but some radios could do this
in some combinations of course), so I don't know if there's
much competition at this time. Perhaps OP tech?
You're right that this gets pretty confusing. I can't wait
to just have it all overwith and be flying with the damn
stuff. At that point, I'm sure I'll realize that the plane
can do so many more things than *I* can do,that I won't
even use lots of the functionality that I could be.
To me, the biggest important addition to this panel over
my existing old steam gauge Sundowner panel is the addition
of the weather module. Everything else, with all it's
fancy integration is just icing on the cake. Oh, and a
legal IFR enroute and approach GPS...almost forgot that one.
But again, you're absolutely right...the SL-30/SL-40 combo
would be a spectacular way to save THOUSANDS of dollars
and get most everything that will have.
One last point about vertical steering....remember that
the Chelton will do this for your autopilot...just not
using the actual milivolt output of your radios and being
run directly into the autopilot at that signal level.
This confused me too, but now I realize why....the radios
are what create the +/- 150mV signals. The Chelton has
no radio built in. So, if you wanted to create those
signals to drive an analog AP with them, you'd have to
add a bit of hardware to the Chelton too. Beyond that,
the only way it will ever do more than it is now is
by putting out digital signals that it has reprocessed
somehow in software. Not that this is a bad thing....because
I think they're doing very well by just being able to
DIGITALLY drive the AP both vertically and laterally, to
fly it's HITS GPS derived flightpath. As long as you're
willing to monitor the CDI needles manually, there's
really not any big shortcoming there from what I can see.
So, you read the manuals all the way thru? Were you as
"Gee whiz'd" out by it all as I was when I looked through
them. I can't believe they get that box to do all that,
and things seem very well thought out, too. Also,
the software that we'll be running will have even MORE in
it than the manuals currently will show!
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
Mark wrote:
> Tim,
>
> I spent the last few hours reading the information manual on Chelton's
> website. It seems that the Chelton units have all of the data that one
> would need, except the com. Just curious, why did you elect to go with
> the GNS-480? With all of the approaches, freqs and data in the Chelton
> box, it seems you could get by really well with a dual SL-30
> installation, or an SL-30 + SL-40. Am I missing something? Does the
> G480 give you vertical steering for the autopilot for GPS approaches? I
> would really like to have the ability to have AP vertical guidance for
> non-precision approaches. The Chelton will give HITS vertical guidance,
> but will not drive an AP vertically for non-precision approaches. From
> what I can tell, the BlueMountain and the GRT units don't have
> approaches in the database so these probably won't have this either.
> This may change with the BMA unit as they are incorporating a Jep
> database into their software.
>
> I am a gadget/electronics freak and I LOVE all of this new capability we
> have, but it gets confusing!
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Richard Sipp <mailto:rsipp@earthlink.net>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: RE: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net
> <mailto:rsipp@earthlink.net>>
>
> Ditto the great information coming from this thread. I asked (one
> of the
> Chelton Flight instructors I think it was) if the Chelton could
> follow an
> externally edited flight plan, I.E. Garmin 480 and was told that was
> not
> possible and that the Chelton would only follow an internally generated
> flight plan. Vic, your information seems to indicate that with the
> correct
> switching it may be possible.
>
> My concern remains complex switchology that can lead to problems in
> single
> pilot IFR. Believe me, even in very expensive 2 pilot automated
> cockpits
> with well trained crews confusion over what the airplane is doing
> can very
> quickly become an issue. The test is: can you easily load a new
> approach a
> mile or two out from the FAP. (I heard this clearance issued to flight
> today) If you had to do this on both the Chelton and the 480 you
> would be
> busy to say the least. I still favor the Chelton by far, but am
> looking for
> ways to simplify the panel and autopilot operation. Vic's
> suggestion to
> hard wire an OBS indicator to an SL30 or 480 is a good one in my
> opinion.
>
> Dick Sipp
> #40065
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com <mailto:Tim@MyRV10.com>>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 9:21 AM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: RE: Chelton Panels, Autopilots, and GPS
>
>
> > --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> >> [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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> >> ====================================
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > =========================nbsp; Navigator Photoshare, and
> much much ;
> ===============================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: Jeff Carpenter <jeff@westcottpress.com>
I realize we work at different speeds, with different skill sets, to
different standards and with different levels of panels, paint jobs
and mods in mind, but I would still like to get a handle on how long
this thing is going to take me to build. Don't' get me wrong, I
enjoy the build process, but I'd like to know if I'm on track for 4
years or 12... and if I'm taking longer than I should, is it that I
need a different tool or spend too much time deburring?
I'm certain too, that builders both ahead of and behind me would be
helped along by some reasonable sense of how they were progressing
relative to the group.
Anyway, with all that in mind I report the following:
I've been working since November 16th, 2004 when my tail kit
arrived. I'm sustaining a pace of 2 hours a day, 5 days a week and
have some notion that the project will take me 2000 hours... or about
4 years from the time I unpacked the crate. As of today, I've put in
309.18 hours. I track my time on the computer by "clocking in" when
I begin work and "clocking out" when I've washed my hands after I've
stopped work. My time includes unpacking the crate and taking the
inventory. It doesn't include setting up the work shop, reading the
manual before bed or reading these e-mails.
I've previously built the tail of an RV-6
I'm not priming anything aluminum until I get to the cabin.
I work with almost no help (I enlist some from time to time when I
can't reach both sides of a rivet).
My project sits inside my commercial printing business and I work on
it during the work day, so I'm subject to interruptions from my
employees and customers
I'll likely "buy" my panel, upholstery and firewall forward. I'm
considering shooting my own paint.
I've had to build a pair of attach brackets for the HS as well as the
tip ribs for the elevators twice at the cost of about 10 hours
I've got about 2-3 hours left to attach the trim tabs to the
elevators and have put about 14 hours into the tail cone while I
waited for the pro-seal to dry on the tabs.
Any thoughts? Is my 2000 hour expectation reasonable?
Jeff Carpenter
40304
N410CF
OSH 09
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! --
|