Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:58 AM - -10 Static Ports (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
2. 06:14 AM - Re: Aux fuel tanks? (Darton Steve)
3. 06:57 AM - Re: -10 Static Ports (JOHN STARN)
4. 08:05 AM - Re: -10 Static Ports (Randy DeBauw)
5. 08:07 AM - Re: Headliner trim, and filling fiberglass (Randy DeBauw)
6. 09:04 AM - Re: -10 Static Ports (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
7. 09:37 AM - Re: Manifold Pressure (Dan Checkoway)
8. 10:41 AM - Re: Gaunlet to Scott (Scott Schmidt)
9. 12:35 PM - Headliner...it ain't that bad (Tim Olson)
10. 02:03 PM - Re: Aux fuel tanks? (Greg Young)
11. 03:27 PM - Re: -10 Static Ports (LarryRosen@comcast.net)
12. 03:35 PM - Firewall Insualtion? (Byron Gillespie)
13. 03:51 PM - Re: De-burr help ..... Please! (Deems Davis)
14. 04:09 PM - Re: -10 Static Ports (McGANN, Ron)
15. 04:18 PM - Re: Headliner trim, and filling fiberglass (DejaVu)
16. 04:18 PM - Re: -10 Static Ports (McGANN, Ron)
17. 04:19 PM - Re: De-burr help ..... Please! (James Hein)
18. 04:19 PM - Re: De-burr help ..... Please! (John Jessen)
19. 04:29 PM - Re: Gear-on Height (Tim Olson)
20. 04:35 PM - Re: De-burr help ..... Please! (John Jessen)
21. 04:37 PM - Re: De-burr help ..... Please! (Sean Stephens)
22. 04:38 PM - Re: De-burr help ..... Please! (Deems Davis)
23. 04:39 PM - Re: De-burr help ..... Please! (Brian Denk)
24. 04:45 PM - Re: De-burr help ..... Please! (Rick)
25. 05:01 PM - Re: De-burr help ..... Please! (James Hein)
26. 05:18 PM - Re: Aux fuel tanks? (GenGrumpy@aol.com)
27. 06:11 PM - Re: Gauntlet to Scott (owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com)
28. 06:13 PM - Re: -10 Static Ports (Tim Lewis)
29. 06:53 PM - Re: Gauntlet to Scott (JOHN STARN)
30. 07:24 PM - rudder vent (Robert G. Wright)
31. 07:38 PM - Re: -10 Static Ports (Robert G. Wright)
32. 07:45 PM - Re: -10 Static Ports (McGANN, Ron)
33. 08:21 PM - QB Fuse Gear Mount Bolts (Marcus Cooper)
34. 08:31 PM - -10 Static Ports. Just my opinion (JOHN STARN)
35. 08:47 PM - Re: QB Fuse Gear Mount Bolts (Tim Olson)
36. 09:01 PM - Re: Gauntlet to Scott (John W. Cox)
37. 09:07 PM - Re: -10 Static Ports. Just my opinion (Scott Lewis)
38. 09:12 PM - Tube Flaring technique (DejaVu)
39. 09:27 PM - Tank Sealant Quantity? (Sean Stephens)
40. 10:26 PM - Re: Gauntlet to Scott (JOHN STARN)
41. 11:03 PM - Re: -10 Static Ports. Just my opinion (JOHN STARN)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | -10 Static Ports |
0.03 HTML_TEXT_AFTER_HTML BODY": rv10-list@matronics.com
Randy, Jesse, and anyone else that is flying,
What did you use for your static ports? I am looking at using the safair1 kit
but have heard that flush, or near flush, mount static ports introduce a large
error in the 1 and 2 seat RV's. I asked Tony at SafeAir1 this question and
got a bit of the run around (posted below for reference). The quality of his
stuff looks to be quite good and I can live with a couple knot discrepancy, but
I don't want to introduce a couple hundred foot error in my altimeter.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352
Tailcone
Michael,
Thank you for your interest in SafeAir1 products.
Like the great "primer wars", this subject comes up about every 6 months.
Our static ports protrude beyond the skin by about .015" (skin thickness .032").
We have sold hundreds static ports and NEVER had a single complaint from customer
or a returned kit. I used flush ports on my RV-6 and have been flying
since the spring of 2000 without an accident. Are my readings improper? I'm
not sure how I'd know? All of my performance parameters are where Van predicted
they should be. Perhaps my system is off 1 knot, 3 knots, or .005 knots?
Or maybe it's the chase airplane with the pop rivets that's off by 2.7 knots?
Are all pop rivets squeezed to the exact same thickness before the mandrel shears?
Has Van's changed pop rivet suppliers? How thick is the boundary layer
along the RV-X side skins where the ports are mounted? Are the boundary layers
always the same? What if the aircraft with flush ports had a leaky static
system? I'm not trying to beat you up for asking the question. I can only point
to my success, and the success of our customers and say our ports seem to
work in a satisfactory manner. Having said that, We've sold a lot of ports to
RV-10 builders, but I don't know if any of them have flown yet.
I am not aware of any static ports, including Van's pop rivet of the day, that
have been designed and tested for use in experimental aircraft static systems.
If you're not comfortable with our static ports, I suggest you stick with pop
rivets per Van's plans.
Regards,
Tony Munday
SafeAir1
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sausen
Subject: RV-10 pitot-static kit
I'm interested in your pitot-static kit for the -10 I am building and was
wondering if your machined static ports protrude above the skin similar to
the Van's pop rivet style. The reason I ask is the flush mounts have shown to
cause an improper reading on other RV models.
Thanks,
Michael Sausen
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 |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=DwjTWIPbjzTysiWH5Xm6j0GurHW0hMhxy3/gl00e9oIhL6nXl2PJWpeCx+0emYJ7hTWu453qfXuzzPx/oEdZJyzZ/wGf93d7VuDBqkKBZ/jCe0p5cB8iG0Hn3Y1/6YATr1L+d4XOmCk6FdvO+cQ2JOM9E74NQfImw3p5/vr3b5Q=
;
--> RV10-List message posted by: Darton Steve <sfdarton@yahoo.com>
Having owned and flown a Cessna 310 for the last three
years and 500 hours I'm not concerned about stability
issues. C310 main tanks are the tip tanks, 50 gallons
per side, the aux tanks are in the wings only 15
gallons per side. This is a very stable aircraft. My
question would be about adding the loading to the end
of the spar?
Steve 40212 Wings
--- Dan Malwitz <dmalwitz@toast.net> wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Malwitz"
> <dmalwitz@toast.net>
>
> Jim,
>
> I have studied stability and control over the years.
> As I recall, adding
> weight out towards the wingtips is destabilizing.
> It could produce an
> undesirable amount of dutch roll. I think of a lot
> of weight in the
> wingtips as like trying to get an arrow to fly
> sideways. There is no doubt
> that adding fuel out there will increase the roll
> inertia which means that
> you will have to yank the stick harder to produce a
> given roll rate. Then
> it may no longer feel like an RV. I would certainly
> check with Van's to get
> their take on the subject. It would be nice to have
> another 10 gallons,
> like a C-182.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan Malwitz
> Senior Design Engineer
> Moog Inc.
> Planning to start a 10 in 2006
>
>
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: James Hein
> <n8vim@arrl.net>
>
> Hi y'all...
> For those putting in aux. fuel tanks, what are
> the options and what
> are the pros/cons?
> I'm thinking of a 2/3 size tank outboard of each
> main tank on the wings,
> but have no clue how much that would affect balance.
>
> What do y'all think?
>
> -Jim 40384, just finished horizontal stabilizer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: -10 Static Ports |
Don't think "run around" is quite the right statement. I have posted on this subject
before. Check archives. We "rolled our own" static system from ACS parts.
We have a two GPS system in HRII N561FS. Pilot III in front & Garmin 196 in
rear. Two totally independent GPS systems of each other & the on board static
system. They all read within a knot or two of each other at any given moment
in time. The GPS's vary with the static system because of the wind direction and
speed. I guess that I could try to take a "snapshot" photo of all three in
the same frame to compare outputs but not sure that would prove anything. We've
flown with RV-4's, -6, -6A, -8, -8A, Yankee, Cessna's, Pipers, Mooney's that
have different "systems" (pop rivet, flush ports, extended ports [putting a washer
under the pop rivet head] and paint flush). All seem to be within 1 to 3%
of each other at any given moment. Chasing the "perfect" reading is, in my not
too humble opinion, is like a dog chasing his tail. Ya go around & around till
you finally get a hold of the tail. What have you proven ?, nothing. Ya just
wind up with a mouth full of fir. Because the very last thing any static system
does is remain "static". Your plane with your installation will differ slightly
with everyone else's but as long as it gives out consistent data and you
fly within its envelope you should be fine. N561FS also has AOA but that's
a totally different topic. KABONG Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen)
To: <rv10-list@matronics.com> 0.03 HTML_TEXT_AFTER_HTML BODY : rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:54 AM
Subject: RV10-List: -10 Static Ports
Randy, Jesse, and anyone else that is flying,
What did you use for your static ports? I am looking at using the safair1
kit but have heard that flush, or near flush, mount static ports introduce a large
error in the 1 and 2 seat RV's. I asked Tony at SafeAir1 this question and
got a bit of the run around (posted below for reference). The quality of his
stuff looks to be quite good and I can live with a couple knot discrepancy,
but I don't want to introduce a couple hundred foot error in my altimeter.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352
Tailcone
Michael,
Thank you for your interest in SafeAir1 products.
Like the great "primer wars", this subject comes up about every 6 months.
Our static ports protrude beyond the skin by about .015" (skin thickness .032").
We have sold hundreds static ports and NEVER had a single complaint from
customer or a returned kit. I used flush ports on my RV-6 and have been flying
since the spring of 2000 without an accident. Are my readings improper? I'm
not sure how I'd know? All of my performance parameters are where Van predicted
they should be. Perhaps my system is off 1 knot, 3 knots, or .005 knots?
Or maybe it's the chase airplane with the pop rivets that's off by 2.7 knots?
Are all pop rivets squeezed to the exact same thickness before the mandrel
shears? Has Van's changed pop rivet suppliers? How thick is the boundary layer
along the RV-X side skins where the ports are mounted? Are the boundary layers
always the same? What if the aircraft with flush ports had a leaky static
system? I'm not trying to beat you up for asking the question. I can only
point to my success, and the success of our customers and say our ports seem
to work in a satisfactory manner. Having said that, We've sold a lot of ports
to RV-10 builders, but I don't know if any of them have flown yet.
I am not aware of any static ports, including Van's pop rivet of the day, that
have been designed and tested for use in experimental aircraft static systems.
If you're not comfortable with our static ports, I suggest you stick with
pop rivets per Van's plans.
Regards,
Tony Munday
SafeAir1
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sausen
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:42 PM
To: CustomerCare@SafeAir1.com
Subject: RV-10 pitot-static kit
I'm interested in your pitot-static kit for the -10 I am building and was wondering
if your machined static ports protrude above the skin similar to the
Van's pop rivet style. The reason I ask is the flush mounts have shown to cause
an improper reading on other RV models.
Thanks,
Michael Sausen
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: | -10 Static Ports |
Van's. Randy
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Subject: RV10-List: -10 Static Ports
Randy, Jesse, and anyone else that is flying,
What did you use for your static ports? I am looking at using the
safair1 kit but have heard that flush, or near flush, mount static ports
introduce a large error in the 1 and 2 seat RV's. I asked Tony at
SafeAir1 this question and got a bit of the run around (posted below for
reference). The quality of his stuff looks to be quite good and I can
live with a couple knot discrepancy, but I don't want to introduce a
couple hundred foot error in my altimeter.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352
Tailcone
Michael,
Thank you for your interest in SafeAir1 products.
Like the great "primer wars", this subject comes up about every 6
months.
Our static ports protrude beyond the skin by about .015" (skin thickness
.032"). We have sold hundreds static ports and NEVER had a single
complaint from customer or a returned kit. I used flush ports on my
RV-6 and have been flying since the spring of 2000 without an accident.
Are my readings improper? I'm not sure how I'd know? All of my
performance parameters are where Van predicted they should be. Perhaps
my system is off 1 knot, 3 knots, or .005 knots? Or maybe it's the
chase airplane with the pop rivets that's off by 2.7 knots? Are all pop
rivets squeezed to the exact same thickness before the mandrel shears?
Has Van's changed pop rivet suppliers? How thick is the boundary layer
along the RV-X side skins where the ports are mounted? Are the boundary
layers always the same? What if the aircraft with flush ports had a
leaky static system? I'm not trying to beat you up for asking the
question. I can only point to my success, and the success of our
customers and say our ports seem to work in a satisfactory manner.
Having said that, We've sold a lot of ports to RV-10 builders, but I
don't know if any of them have flown yet.
I am not aware of any static ports, including Van's pop rivet of the
day, that have been designed and tested for use in experimental aircraft
static systems. If you're not comfortable with our static ports, I
suggest you stick with pop rivets per Van's plans.
Regards,
Tony Munday
SafeAir1
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sausen
Subject: RV-10 pitot-static kit
I'm interested in your pitot-static kit for the -10 I am
building and was wondering if your machined static ports protrude above
the skin similar to the Van's pop rivet style. The reason I ask is the
flush mounts have shown to cause an improper reading on other RV models.
Thanks,
Michael Sausen
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: | Headliner trim, and filling fiberglass |
Looking good Anh. Randy
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Headliner trim, and filling fiberglass
OK, some pictures of my headliner partially completed. Also some
pictures of the carpeting. It appears black but is dark blue. I
bought the carpet material from www.airtex.com . $19/yd. You can send
in $3.00 for sample chips.
Anh
----- Original Message -----
From: GenGrumpy@aol.com
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Headliner trim, and filling fiberglass
Where's the picture of the headliner????
Looks like a good party, though.....
In a message dated 6/27/2005 9:24:56 PM Central Standard Time,
wvu@ameritel.net writes:
Tim, yes I did mine side-to-side. One other nice minor
thing about running
the liner sideways is that the grain of the fabric goes
fore/aft, which is
more pleasing to my eyes. Of course no one can really
see that except you
yourself.
I bought 6 yds from the same place that Randy suggested
- way too much. I
think 4yds would do. Better check me and measure for
yourself though. They
come in either 54" or 60" wide. Either would fit from
the baggage bulkhead
to the seam line that you're talking about.
=09
Attached is a pic of some of us at SNF.
Anh
#141
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | -10 Static Ports |
Sorry, maybe I should have said not a very clear answer. ;-) As I stated, my
concern is not the airspeed, it's the Alt readout. I have checked the archives
(saw yours, very informative) and other places and some people reported errors
of a couple hundred feet with flush static ports. Now I can easily see a
50' error if the static port is inside the boundary layer, especially that far
back on the tail. I don't recall which model had the errors, and I'm sure
the couple hundred foot errors are extremes but I'm not willing to jump on either
band wagon without some real information. This whole subject might very well
be a moot point as I don't know if anyone is flying with flush on the -10's
yet. Hence the email for more concrete info on our specific model.
Not trying to nit pick here but altitude readouts in an IFR aircraft need to
be reasonably precise. 50ft error may be acceptable but anything more than 100'
in IFR is most certainly not and +/- 1 inch of pressure is about +/- 900 feet.
Doesn't take much to introduce a large error, just want to make sure I'm
not going to by going with the flush. Keep in mind I am far from knocking Tony
and I have heard nothing but good things about his stuff, I just want the facts.
If they don't exist yet that's fine too. I just might be the one to supply
them to someone else down the road. :-)
Michael
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Subject: Re: RV10-List: -10 Static Ports
Don't think "run around" is quite the right statement. I have posted on this subject
before. Check archives. We "rolled our own" static system from ACS parts.
We have a two GPS system in HRII N561FS. Pilot III in front & Garmin 196 in
rear. Two totally independent GPS systems of each other & the on board static
system. They all read within a knot or two of each other at any given moment
in time. The GPS's vary with the static system because of the wind direction and
speed. I guess that I could try to take a "snapshot" photo of all three in
the same frame to compare outputs but not sure that would prove anything. We've
flown with RV-4's, -6, -6A, -8, -8A, Yankee, Cessna's, Pipers, Mooney's that
have different "systems" (pop rivet, flush ports, extended ports [putting a washer
under the pop rivet head] and paint flush). All seem to be within 1 to 3%
of each other at any given moment. Chasing the "perfect" reading is, in my not
too humble opinion, is like a dog chasing his tail. Ya go around & around till
you finally get a hold of the tail. What have you proven ?, nothing. Ya just
wind up with a mouth full of fir. Because the very last thing any static system
does is remain "static". Your plane with your installation will differ slightly
with everyone else's but as long as it gives out consistent data and you
fly within its envelope you should be fine. N561FS also has AOA but that's
a totally different topic. KABONG Do Not Archive
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Manifold Pressure |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
It's trivial to do. May as well give it a shot and see if that remedies the
problem.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Manifold Pressure
The FWF kit only called for a -4D nipple, no restrictor fitting. Should I
put on a VA-128? I do have the restrictor fitting going through the
firewall.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Manifold Pressure
Did you use a restrictor fitting on the engine side of the manifold pressure
hose?
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
Subject: RV10-List: Manifold Pressure
We are having problems with our manifold pressure on the Dynon. The guage
is bouncing about 2-4 lbs whenever the engine is running. It tells us more
or less where we are, but it never stays in one place long enough to
actually get a reading. Has anybody else ever experienced this problem or
heard of somebody else experiencing it. They techs at Dynon say they have
never heard of it. The techs at Van's say they have never heard of it. It
doesn't have anything to do with vibration in the sensor or obstructions in
the hose. It could be a bad sensor, but I thought it would be worth asking.
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 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Gaunlet to Scott |
Well John I probably will not fly until November at the earliest. My
panel is 8-10 weeks out from Aerocrafter but things are coming along
nicely. I hope to start with paint sometime in August or September, do
final panel install and finish work in October / November. I actually
thing November is pushing it for me. The finishing work really does
take a lot of time. I don't see why there will be any problems with the
MT though. With 1-3 people I will not need any weight in the back. With
4 and baggage I may build a place in the engine compartment that can be
easily outfitted with 15-20 lbs. of tungsten carbide. Anyway, I am
working on the cowling right now so I can get the proper measurements
needed to order the MT.
Unfortunately you hit the nail on the head when I came to bike riding
though. As you were sending out your e-mail I was in the middle of this
year's 24 hour Utah 1088 endurance motorcycle ride. Placed 6th this
year (a little disappointing for me). I had so much fun this year, it
was worth the time it took away from the plane. I rode 1418 miles in
23.5 hours. After I get the feeling back into my right hand I will be
able to start working on the plane again.
Scott Schmidt
Cell: 801-319-3094
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Subject: RV10-List: Gaunlet to Scott
Jim Ayers has posted repeatedly about (4X) forward commitments on the MT
prop option. His hand has been out for money but no product to
challenge Hartzell fore with. Vapor ware (for props), I know better with
MT. Gerd must have all of his dealers on a really short leash. The high
ground is getting even steeper by each day with the inaction. Orders
are being placed. Now, 95% of all the RV-10s on the radar screen are
going with Hartzell. This is a travesty. I fly an MT and it is a
quantum jump over the Whirlwind. I Can't believe no MT is available to
take on this opportunity. MORE THAN 400 opportunities lost (maybe 500
by September). I just have to believe it can outperform a metal two
blade on resonance alone.
When it came to the rubber meeting the road, there has been no traction
on a demonstration of the merits of an MT prop over Hartzell on ANY
RV-10 powered by either a carbureted (Doug) or fuel injected Lycoming
540 CID over the heavier Hartzell (regardless of airfoil design). Scott
the baton is in now in your court. PLEASE. Many of us are now waiting
with anticipation for your first flight and the day when you can take on
all comers with Hartzell metal just to blow the BS from the questions
and produce results on the lighter and sexier prop option. Don't tell
us its still November 2005 for the first flight. Jim is in hiding. We
know VAN is tied to Hartzell, Jim remains safely silent in his cave. Do
all of you guys really believe he doesn't read these posts.
Don't tell us you have another bike ride taking priority over this
important build issue. Lets kick the dog and see the bite or at least
hear a muffled bark. Renae would want nothing less.
John - KUAO
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: | Headliner...it ain't that bad |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Surprise for me, the Headliner thing wasn't a big, nasty deal
afterall. Randy had gone to McDonald Inc. to get his headliner.
"Perfect Fit"
http://www.perfectfit.com/products/shopexd.asp?id=920
Lots of great colors.
I wanted to get mine ordered a.s.a.p. but was worried that it
would be hard to find a sample book. Because looking at that
web page doesn't really give you a great way to match colors.
Today I called our local auto-interior refinisher/upholsterer
called "Auto Top Shop", and they said they do sell headliner
material. To top it off, it was even cheaper than the cost
that Randy had listed in his approximation. I think they told
me $12-12.50 / linear yard. Some colors come in 60" wide, some
only in 54" wide. As it turns out, this stuff is sold under
many names. The stuff that I viewed a sample card from (the
samples looked EXACTLY like perfectfit.com's web page) are
shown here:
http://autoheadliner.us/Headliner%20Colors.htm
It was the exact same stuff, just under the "SunBrite" name,
from the "Glen Raven" mill. Funny thing was, the color I
chose was SB-1853 Smoke, and if you look at the PefectFit.com
page, they also call PH-1000 1853 Smoke.
So anyway, I encourage you to use your yellow pages for
auto refinishers, muscle-car restoration, and auto
upholsterers and I'm guessing you'll easily find a local
source for very similar stuff. After Anh's note about
6 yards being way too much I ordered 5.5 yards. At that
low of a cost, I didn't care if I bought an extra yard.
Tim
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
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 |
|
Having the weight at the end of the spar is typically a benefit to the load distribution
in flight. It can be a detriment to the landing loads though. Case in
point, my Navion tip tanks allow me to increase my gross weight BUT only by
the amount of fuel carried in the tip tanks. We are also cautioned to land gently
if the tips are filled. It was likely a no-analysis item back when the STC
was approved. Bending loads are one thing but it will also change the handling
and fore-aft sloshing will affect CG and may impart torsional loads to the wing.
Look at Van's write-up on the wing design and load testing before you think
about modifying it.
Regards,
Greg Young
________________________________
--> RV10-List message posted by: Darton Steve <sfdarton@yahoo.com>
Having owned and flown a Cessna 310 for the last three
years and 500 hours I'm not concerned about stability
issues. C310 main tanks are the tip tanks, 50 gallons
per side, the aux tanks are in the wings only 15
gallons per side. This is a very stable aircraft. My
question would be about adding the loading to the end
of the spar?
Steve 40212 Wings
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | -10 Static Ports |
I purchased the Safe Air 1 static system. I will let you know in a couple of years
if it is accurate ;-)
Larry Rosen
#356
-------------- Original message --------------
Sorry, maybe I should have said not a very clear answer. ;-) As I stated, my
concern is not the airspeed, it's the Alt readout. I have checked the archives
(saw yours, very informative) and other places and some people reported errors
of a couple hundred feet with flush static ports. Now I can easily see a
50' error if the static port is inside the boundary layer, especially that far
back on the tail. I don't recall which model had the errors, and I'm sure
the couple hundred foot errors are extremes but I'm not willing to jump on either
band wagon without some real information. This whole subject might very well
be a moot point as I don't know if anyone is flying with flush on the -10's
yet. Hence the email for more concrete info on our specific model.
Not trying to nit pick here but altitude readouts in an IFR aircraft need to
be reasonably precise. 50ft error may be acceptable but anything more than 100'
in IFR is most certainly not and +/- 1 inch of pressure is about +/- 900 feet.
Doesn't take much to introduce a large error, just want to make sure I'm
not going to by going with the flush. Keep in mind I am far from knocking Tony
and I have heard nothing but good things about his stuff, I just want the facts.
If they don't exist yet that's fine too. I just might be the one to supply
them to someone else down the road. :-)
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Subject: Re: RV10-List: -10 Static Ports
Don't think "run around" is quite the right statement. I have posted on this subject
before. Check archives. We "rolled our own" static system from ACS parts.
We have a two GPS system in HRII N561FS. Pilot III in front & Garmin 196 in
rear. Two totally independent GPS systems of each other & the on board static
system. They all read within a knot or two of each other at any given moment
in time. The GPS's vary with the static system because of the wind direction and
speed. I guess that I could try to take a "snapshot" photo of all three in
the same frame to compare outputs but not sure that would prove anything. We've
flown with RV-4's, -6, -6A, -8, -8A, Yankee, Cessna's, Pipers, Mooney's that
have different "systems" (pop rivet, flush ports, extended ports [putting a washer
under the pop rivet head] and paint flush). All seem to be within 1 to 3%
of each other at any given moment. Chasing the "perfect" reading is, in my not
too humble opinion, is like a dog chasing his tail
. Ya go around & around till you finally get a hold of the tail. What have you
proven ?, nothing. Ya just wind up with a mouth full of fir. Because the very
last thing any static system does is remain "static". Your plane with your installation
will differ slightly with everyone else's but as long as it gives out
consistent data and you fly within its envelope you should be fine. N561FS
also has AOA but that's a totally different topic. KABONG Do Not Archive
I purchased the Safe Air 1 static system. I will let you know in a couple of years
if it is accurate ;-)
Larry Rosen
#356
-------------- Original message --------------
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
Sorry, maybe I should have saidnot avery clear answer. ;-) As I stated, my concern
is not the airspeed, it's the Alt readout. I have checked the archives (saw
yours, very informative)and other places and some people reported errors of
a couple hundred feet with flush static ports. Now I can easily see a 50' error
if the static port is inside the boundary layer, especially that far back on
the tail. I don't recall which model had the errors, and I'm sure the couple
hundred foot errors are extremes but I'm not willing to jump on either band wagon
without some real information. This whole subject might very well be a moot
point as I don't know if anyone is flying with flush on the -10's yet. Hence
the email for more concrete info on our specific model.
Not trying to nit pick here but altitude readouts in an IFR aircraft need to be
reasonably precise. 50ft error may be acceptable but anything more than 100'
in IFR is most certainly not and +/- 1 inch of pressure is about+/- 900 feet.
Doesn't take much to introduce a large error, just want to make sure I'm not
going to by going with the flush. Keep in mind I am far from knocking Tony and
I have heard nothing but good things about his stuff, I just want the facts.
If they don't exist yet that's fine too. I just might be the one to supply them
to someone else down the road. :-)
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Subject: Re: RV10-List: -10 Static Ports
Don't think "run around" is quite the right statement. I have posted on this subject
before. Check archives. We "rolled our own" static system from ACS parts.
We have a two GPS system in HRII N561FS. Pilot III in front Garmin 196 in rear.
Two totally independent GPS systems of each other the on board static system.
They all read within a knot or two of each other at any given moment in
time. The GPS's vary with the static system because of the wind direction and
speed. I guess that I could try to take a "snapshot" photo of all three in the
same frame to compare outputs but not sure that would prove anything. We've flown
with RV-4's, -6, -6A, -8, -8A, Yankee, Cessna's, Pipers, Mooney'sthat have
different "systems" (pop rivet, flush ports, extended ports [putting a washer
under the pop rivet head] and paint flush). All seem to be within 1 to 3% of
each other at any given moment. Chasing the "perfect" reading is, in my not too
humble opinion, is like
a dog chasing his tail. Ya go around around till you finally get a hold of the
tail. What have you proven ?, nothing. Ya just wind up with a mouth full of
fir. Because the very last thing any static system does is remain "static". Your
plane with your installationwill differ slightly with everyone else's but
as long as it gives outconsistent data and you fly within its envelope you should
be fine. N561FS also has AOA but that's a totally different topic. KABONGDo
Not Archive
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 |
|
d="scan'208,217"; a="1208289600:sNHT74095914"
| Subject: | Firewall Insualtion? |
What are any of you doing relative to firewall insulation? I have
searched the archives and have found very little info. I am putting
together an order to Aircraft Spruce and noticed that they have several
different types. Thought that I would add it on to the floor insulation
order. Just ordered my fuel pumps, etc from Vans yesterday.
Just looking to those who have (and are) forged ahead for the usual
guidance.
Thanks,
Byron
More fuselage decisions - # 40253
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: | Re: De-burr help ..... Please! |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
OK, I''ve read Van's Manual about how hard 2024 Al is and how the
slightest scratch and turn into a crack, and how EVERYTHING needs to be
deburred, Ok I get the picture, BUT !!! what bout the spaces between
the flanges on ribs, bulkheads etc. you know the ones, the ones that
only have about 1/8 in between them, No way to get a scotchbright wheel
in there, I've tried a number of dremel bits, but not found none that
leaves a smooth edge. i'vve tried a variety of fingernail files as well.
So for some of you repeat offenders, and otherwise experienced and
skilled workers of aluminum magic, just how important is it that these
'flange gaps' get deburred? I can get the Scotchbrite wheel/s to do both
edges of the flanges themselves, but these 'gaps' are driving me crazy.
I'm starting my HS and looking at a number of them and thinking there's
got be be a better way. (Or perhaps no way?) The thoughts of dong the
wings nexy bring tears to my eyes.
Deems Davis #406
HS
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: | -10 Static Ports |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
<http://www.aa.gov/certification/aircraft/av-info/dst/43-13/Ch_12-04.doc>
Following content from AC 43.13-1B CHG 1 from
<
<http://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/av-info/dst/43-13/ch_12-04.doc>
www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/av-info/dst/43-13/ch_12-04.doc>
12-54 STATIC PORTS AND VENTS (more modern trend) should be mounted flush
with fuselage skin. One port is located on either side of the fuselage,
usually behind the cabin.
I'm not sure of its currency. I went with the Cleaveland flush ports.
cheers,
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Subject: RE: RV10-List: -10 Static Ports
Sorry, maybe I should have said not a very clear answer. ;-) As I
stated, my concern is not the airspeed, it's the Alt readout. I have
checked the archives (saw yours, very informative) and other places and some
people reported errors of a couple hundred feet with flush static ports.
Now I can easily see a 50' error if the static port is inside the boundary
layer, especially that far back on the tail. I don't recall which model had
the errors, and I'm sure the couple hundred foot errors are extremes but
I'm not willing to jump on either band wagon without some real information.
This whole subject might very well be a moot point as I don't know if anyone
is flying with flush on the -10's yet. Hence the email for more concrete
info on our specific model.
Not trying to nit pick here but altitude readouts in an IFR aircraft need
to be reasonably precise. 50ft error may be acceptable but anything more
than 100' in IFR is most certainly not and +/- 1 inch of pressure is about
+/- 900 feet. Doesn't take much to introduce a large error, just want to
make sure I'm not going to by going with the flush. Keep in mind I am far
from knocking Tony and I have heard nothing but good things about his stuff,
I just want the facts. If they don't exist yet that's fine too. I just
might be the one to supply them to someone else down the road. :-)
Michael
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Subject: Re: RV10-List: -10 Static Ports
Don't think "run around" is quite the right statement. I have posted on this
subject before. Check archives. We "rolled our own" static system from ACS
parts. We have a two GPS system in HRII N561FS. Pilot III in front & Garmin
196 in rear. Two totally independent GPS systems of each other & the on
board static system. They all read within a knot or two of each other at any
given moment in time. The GPS's vary with the static system because of the
wind direction and speed. I guess that I could try to take a "snapshot"
photo of all three in the same frame to compare outputs but not sure that
would prove anything. We've flown with RV-4's, -6, -6A, -8, -8A, Yankee,
Cessna's, Pipers, Mooney's that have different "systems" (pop rivet, flush
ports, extended ports [putting a washer under the pop rivet head] and paint
flush). All seem to be within 1 to 3% of each other at any given moment.
Chasing the "perfect" reading is, in my not too humble opinion, is like a
dog chasing his tail. Ya go around & around till you finally get a hold of
the tail. What have you proven ?, nothing. Ya just wind up with a mouth full
of fir. Because the very last thing any static system does is remain
"static". Your plane with your installation will differ slightly with
everyone else's but as long as it gives out consistent data and you fly
within its envelope you should be fine. N561FS also has AOA but that's a
totally different topic. KABONG Do Not Archive
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: Headliner trim, and filling fiberglass |
sorry, www.airtexinteriors.com for carpeting.
Anh
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy DeBauw
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 11:06 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Headliner trim, and filling fiberglass
Looking good Anh. Randy
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:27 PM
To: RV10
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Headliner trim, and filling fiberglass
OK, some pictures of my headliner partially completed. Also some pictures of the carpeting. It appears black but is dark blue. I bought the carpet material from www.airtex.com . $19/yd. You can send in $3.00 for sample chips.
Anh
----- Original Message -----
From: GenGrumpy@aol.com
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Headliner trim, and filling fiberglass
Where's the picture of the headliner????
Looks like a good party, though.....
In a message dated 6/27/2005 9:24:56 PM Central Standard Time, wvu@ameritel.net
writes:
Tim, yes I did mine side-to-side. One other nice minor thing about running
the liner sideways is that the grain of the fabric goes fore/aft, which is
more pleasing to my eyes. Of course no one can really see that except you
yourself.
I bought 6 yds from the same place that Randy suggested - way too much.
I
think 4yds would do. Better check me and measure for yourself though. They
come in either 54" or 60" wide. Either would fit from the baggage bulkhead
to the seam line that you're talking about.
Attached is a pic of some of us at SNF.
Anh
#141
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: | -10 Static Ports |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
Link below should be
<www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/av-info/dst/43-13/ch_12-04.doc>
Outlook can be such a bitch sometimes
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of McGANN, Ron
Subject: RE: RV10-List: -10 Static Ports
--> RV10-List message posted by: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
<http://www.aa.gov/certification/aircraft/av-info/dst/43-13/Ch_12-04.doc>
Following content from AC 43.13-1B CHG 1 from
<
<http://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/av-info/dst/43-13/ch_12-04.doc>
www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/av-info/dst/43-13/ch_12-04.doc>
12-54 STATIC PORTS AND VENTS (more modern trend) should be mounted flush
with fuselage skin. One port is located on either side of the fuselage,
usually behind the cabin.
I'm not sure of its currency. I went with the Cleaveland flush ports.
cheers,
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Subject: RE: RV10-List: -10 Static Ports
Sorry, maybe I should have said not a very clear answer. ;-) As I
stated, my concern is not the airspeed, it's the Alt readout. I have
checked the archives (saw yours, very informative) and other places and some
people reported errors of a couple hundred feet with flush static ports.
Now I can easily see a 50' error if the static port is inside the boundary
layer, especially that far back on the tail. I don't recall which model had
the errors, and I'm sure the couple hundred foot errors are extremes but
I'm not willing to jump on either band wagon without some real information.
This whole subject might very well be a moot point as I don't know if anyone
is flying with flush on the -10's yet. Hence the email for more concrete
info on our specific model.
Not trying to nit pick here but altitude readouts in an IFR aircraft need
to be reasonably precise. 50ft error may be acceptable but anything more
than 100' in IFR is most certainly not and +/- 1 inch of pressure is about
+/- 900 feet. Doesn't take much to introduce a large error, just want to
make sure I'm not going to by going with the flush. Keep in mind I am far
from knocking Tony and I have heard nothing but good things about his stuff,
I just want the facts. If they don't exist yet that's fine too. I just
might be the one to supply them to someone else down the road. :-)
Michael
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Subject: Re: RV10-List: -10 Static Ports
Don't think "run around" is quite the right statement. I have posted on this
subject before. Check archives. We "rolled our own" static system from ACS
parts. We have a two GPS system in HRII N561FS. Pilot III in front & Garmin
196 in rear. Two totally independent GPS systems of each other & the on
board static system. They all read within a knot or two of each other at any
given moment in time. The GPS's vary with the static system because of the
wind direction and speed. I guess that I could try to take a "snapshot"
photo of all three in the same frame to compare outputs but not sure that
would prove anything. We've flown with RV-4's, -6, -6A, -8, -8A, Yankee,
Cessna's, Pipers, Mooney's that have different "systems" (pop rivet, flush
ports, extended ports [putting a washer under the pop rivet head] and paint
flush). All seem to be within 1 to 3% of each other at any given moment.
Chasing the "perfect" reading is, in my not too humble opinion, is like a
dog chasing his tail. Ya go around & around till you finally get a hold of
the tail. What have you proven ?, nothing. Ya just wind up with a mouth full
of fir. Because the very last thing any static system does is remain
"static". Your plane with your installation will differ slightly with
everyone else's but as long as it gives out consistent data and you fly
within its envelope you should be fine. N561FS also has AOA but that's a
totally different topic. KABONG Do Not Archive
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 |
|
d="scan'208"; a="1043623619:sNHT60468704"
| Subject: | Re: De-burr help ..... Please! |
--> RV10-List message posted by: James Hein <n8vim@arrl.net>
Been there, Done that....
I went to the hardware store and got a roll of "Plumbers Abrasive
Roll". It's a 1" wide roll of, well, basically sandpaper, except its on
a cloth backing so it doesn't rip easy. Take the parts and a piece of
that roll and "floss away" :)
The other thing I did is get a 1/8" round chainsaw file; It works
well for the rounded parts between the flanges where they meet the web.
Other than that, I've also used a deburring bit in the Dremel (it's
only 1/8" diameter.. good for tight spots.)
Enjoy! Those are alot of ribs!
-Jim 40384, just finished H.S.
Deems Davis wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
> OK, I''ve read Van's Manual about how hard 2024 Al is and how the
> slightest scratch and turn into a crack, and how EVERYTHING needs to
> be deburred, Ok I get the picture, BUT !!! what bout the spaces
> between the flanges on ribs, bulkheads etc. you know the ones, the
> ones that only have about 1/8 in between them, No way to get a
> scotchbright wheel in there, I've tried a number of dremel bits, but
> not found none that leaves a smooth edge. i'vve tried a variety of
> fingernail files as well. So for some of you repeat offenders, and
> otherwise experienced and skilled workers of aluminum magic, just how
> important is it that these 'flange gaps' get deburred? I can get the
> Scotchbrite wheel/s to do both edges of the flanges themselves, but
> these 'gaps' are driving me crazy. I'm starting my HS and looking at
> a number of them and thinking there's got be be a better way. (Or
> perhaps no way?) The thoughts of dong the wings nexy bring tears to my
> eyes.
>
> Deems Davis #406
>
> HS
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
d="scan'208"; a="55752372:sNHT29866588"
| Subject: | De-burr help ..... Please! |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Ahhhhh.
I had the same question just a few flanges ago. Here's what my tech advisor
demonstrated. You go get a set of very small files at HD or from Avery, et.
al. In the set will be a round, a half round, and a flat file, among
others. The flat file does go in between almost all those little spaces and
I've found that 5 to 6 strokes takes care of any shear marks. Then I turn
to the emery board to smooth it out (or to 220 sandpaper, which is now what
I'm using). About 20 strokes with the sandpaper and it's smooth. The round
and half round files are used to get to the holes, but that's a little
tricky. I'm not sure if I'm doing more damage than not, so I'm a little
worried about doing much with those. If you are only slightly aggressive,
you can end up having a deformed hole. I've taken to vigorously sanding
these and not using files. I believe some let them go without deburring.
BUT IT IS TEDIOUS AS ALL HECK AND SLOWS ONE DOWN, and I too would like to
hear about more efficient means of doing such.
John Jessen
(trying to understand how production AL plans are deburred)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis
Subject: Re: RV10-List: De-burr help ..... Please!
--> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
OK, I''ve read Van's Manual about how hard 2024 Al is and how the slightest
scratch and turn into a crack, and how EVERYTHING needs to be deburred, Ok I
get the picture, BUT !!! what bout the spaces between the flanges on ribs,
bulkheads etc. you know the ones, the ones that only have about 1/8 in
between them, No way to get a scotchbright wheel in there, I've tried a
number of dremel bits, but not found none that leaves a smooth edge. i'vve
tried a variety of fingernail files as well.
So for some of you repeat offenders, and otherwise experienced and skilled
workers of aluminum magic, just how important is it that these 'flange gaps'
get deburred? I can get the Scotchbrite wheel/s to do both edges of the
flanges themselves, but these 'gaps' are driving me crazy.
I'm starting my HS and looking at a number of them and thinking there's got
be be a better way. (Or perhaps no way?) The thoughts of dong the wings nexy
bring tears to my eyes.
Deems Davis #406
HS
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: Gear-on Height |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
OK, my plea just got more critical.....
I measured my garage door height and it is exactly 78.5", which, if
you're good at your calculus and trigonometry (just kidding) is
just over 6'6". If Randy had a 7' door, and it was 2-3" of
clearance, I may have some issues to overcome. Anyone out there
with gear and wheels on that can tell me the height to the
belly and the highest canopy point? One other good measurement
would be.....how much room could I save if I didn't mount
my rims, but put the gear legs on low-slung dollies with casters?
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Tim Olson wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> Can someone with their -10 on gear (preferably without engine
> mounted yet, but I'll take anything) measure from floor to belly under
> rear seats, and, if possible, from floor to top of canopy. I'd
> like to make sure that I'll be able to fit this out my garage door
> if I put the gear on in the next couple weeks....I only have a 7'
> door I think.
>
> I'll put the info on my "workspace requirements" tips page after
> I get it.
>
> Tim
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 |
|
d="scan'208"; a="55757639:sNHT30829924"
| Subject: | De-burr help ..... Please! |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Deburring bit? In the Dremel? Is this a Dremel deburring bit? I've been
looking for such. Can you be more specific.
Thanks,
John Jessen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Hein
Subject: Re: RV10-List: De-burr help ..... Please!
--> RV10-List message posted by: James Hein <n8vim@arrl.net>
Been there, Done that....
I went to the hardware store and got a roll of "Plumbers Abrasive Roll".
It's a 1" wide roll of, well, basically sandpaper, except its on a cloth
backing so it doesn't rip easy. Take the parts and a piece of that roll and
"floss away" :)
The other thing I did is get a 1/8" round chainsaw file; It works well
for the rounded parts between the flanges where they meet the web.
Other than that, I've also used a deburring bit in the Dremel (it's only
1/8" diameter.. good for tight spots.)
Enjoy! Those are alot of ribs!
-Jim 40384, just finished H.S.
Deems Davis wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
> OK, I''ve read Van's Manual about how hard 2024 Al is and how the
> slightest scratch and turn into a crack, and how EVERYTHING needs to
> be deburred, Ok I get the picture, BUT !!! what bout the spaces
> between the flanges on ribs, bulkheads etc. you know the ones, the
> ones that only have about 1/8 in between them, No way to get a
> scotchbright wheel in there, I've tried a number of dremel bits, but
> not found none that leaves a smooth edge. i'vve tried a variety of
> fingernail files as well. So for some of you repeat offenders, and
> otherwise experienced and skilled workers of aluminum magic, just how
> important is it that these 'flange gaps' get deburred? I can get the
> Scotchbrite wheel/s to do both edges of the flanges themselves, but
> these 'gaps' are driving me crazy. I'm starting my HS and looking at
> a number of them and thinking there's got be be a better way. (Or
> perhaps no way?) The thoughts of dong the wings nexy bring tears to my
> eyes.
>
> Deems Davis #406
>
> HS
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: De-burr help ..... Please! |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
I don't do anything more than run the groove along the edge of the 3M
wheel on the bench grinder. fast, efficient, not too anal. :)
-Sean #40303 flaps
James Hein wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: James Hein <n8vim@arrl.net>
>
> Been there, Done that....
>
> I went to the hardware store and got a roll of "Plumbers Abrasive
> Roll". It's a 1" wide roll of, well, basically sandpaper, except its
> on a cloth backing so it doesn't rip easy. Take the parts and a piece
> of that roll and "floss away" :)
> The other thing I did is get a 1/8" round chainsaw file; It works
> well for the rounded parts between the flanges where they meet the web.
> Other than that, I've also used a deburring bit in the Dremel (it's
> only 1/8" diameter.. good for tight spots.)
>
> Enjoy! Those are alot of ribs!
>
> -Jim 40384, just finished H.S.
>
>
> Deems Davis wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>>
>> OK, I''ve read Van's Manual about how hard 2024 Al is and how the
>> slightest scratch and turn into a crack, and how EVERYTHING needs to
>> be deburred, Ok I get the picture, BUT !!! what bout the spaces
>> between the flanges on ribs, bulkheads etc. you know the ones, the
>> ones that only have about 1/8 in between them, No way to get a
>> scotchbright wheel in there, I've tried a number of dremel bits, but
>> not found none that leaves a smooth edge. i'vve tried a variety of
>> fingernail files as well. So for some of you repeat offenders, and
>> otherwise experienced and skilled workers of aluminum magic, just how
>> important is it that these 'flange gaps' get deburred? I can get the
>> Scotchbrite wheel/s to do both edges of the flanges themselves, but
>> these 'gaps' are driving me crazy. I'm starting my HS and looking at
>> a number of them and thinking there's got be be a better way. (Or
>> perhaps no way?) The thoughts of dong the wings nexy bring tears to
>> my eyes.
>>
>> Deems Davis #406
>>
>> HS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: De-burr help ..... Please! |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
I agree, John there's no way, the aircraft mfg's could aford to do this
debur thing the way we're trying to do it.
Deems
John Jessen wrote:
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
>
>Ahhhhh.
>
>I had the same question just a few flanges ago. Here's what my tech advisor
>demonstrated. You go get a set of very small files at HD or from Avery, et.
>al. In the set will be a round, a half round, and a flat file, among
>others. The flat file does go in between almost all those little spaces and
>I've found that 5 to 6 strokes takes care of any shear marks. Then I turn
>to the emery board to smooth it out (or to 220 sandpaper, which is now what
>I'm using). About 20 strokes with the sandpaper and it's smooth. The round
>and half round files are used to get to the holes, but that's a little
>tricky. I'm not sure if I'm doing more damage than not, so I'm a little
>worried about doing much with those. If you are only slightly aggressive,
>you can end up having a deformed hole. I've taken to vigorously sanding
>these and not using files. I believe some let them go without deburring.
>
>BUT IT IS TEDIOUS AS ALL HECK AND SLOWS ONE DOWN, and I too would like to
>hear about more efficient means of doing such.
>
>John Jessen
> (trying to understand how production AL plans are deburred)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis
>Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 3:53 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: De-burr help ..... Please!
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
>OK, I''ve read Van's Manual about how hard 2024 Al is and how the slightest
>scratch and turn into a crack, and how EVERYTHING needs to be deburred, Ok I
>get the picture, BUT !!! what bout the spaces between the flanges on ribs,
>bulkheads etc. you know the ones, the ones that only have about 1/8 in
>between them, No way to get a scotchbright wheel in there, I've tried a
>number of dremel bits, but not found none that leaves a smooth edge. i'vve
>tried a variety of fingernail files as well.
>So for some of you repeat offenders, and otherwise experienced and skilled
>workers of aluminum magic, just how important is it that these 'flange gaps'
>get deburred? I can get the Scotchbrite wheel/s to do both edges of the
>flanges themselves, but these 'gaps' are driving me crazy.
>I'm starting my HS and looking at a number of them and thinking there's got
>be be a better way. (Or perhaps no way?) The thoughts of dong the wings nexy
>bring tears to my eyes.
>
>Deems Davis #406
>
>HS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: De-burr help ..... Please! |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@hotmail.com>
>OK, I''ve read Van's Manual about how hard 2024 Al is and how the slightest
>scratch and turn into a crack, and how EVERYTHING needs to be deburred, Ok
>I get the picture, BUT !!! what bout the spaces between the flanges on
>ribs, bulkheads etc. you know the ones, the ones that only have about 1/8
>in between them, No way to get a scotchbright wheel in there, I've tried a
>number of dremel bits, but not found none that leaves a smooth edge. i'vve
>tried a variety of fingernail files as well. So for some of you repeat
>offenders, and otherwise experienced and skilled workers of aluminum magic,
>just how important is it that these 'flange gaps' get deburred? I can get
>the Scotchbrite wheel/s to do both edges of the flanges themselves, but
>these 'gaps' are driving me crazy. I'm starting my HS and looking at a
>number of them and thinking there's got be be a better way. (Or perhaps no
>way?) The thoughts of dong the wings nexy bring tears to my eyes.
>
>Deems Davis #406
>
>HS
Easy now, don't lose your mind over it. (Too late? ;)
For the nooks and crannies I use jewelers files...the rat tail ones. Harbor
freight sells them in sets for dirt cheap. Just draw the file through the
notch and knock off the burr caused from the shearing process. Chain saw
sharpening files also work very well and are larger and easier to grasp.
To be quite honest, I don't do much in these flange notch recesses. My edge
and hole deburring on my -8 was far from perfect and the airplane has not a
single crack anywhere in the airframe after five years of flying fun. I'm
not too concerned with stress crack propagation in the internal ribs and
formers as they are locked down and not subject to any significant amount of
movement or flexion. Unsupported skin edges (trailing edge of wing skins,
HS, VS skins, etc) can get some buzzing from engine vibrations and airflow.
I try to buff these down to a smooth finish.
To each his own, and you have to be comfortable with your degree of effort
applied to this process. Just remember you're not building a Swiss watch,
and do you think the airframe builders in WWII spent any significant amount
of time deburring every single piece of the thousands of airframes they
built? I think not! Are many of these airframes still airworthy to this
very day? You betcha.
Oh and don't sweat the scratches and scuffs. You'll hangar rash the parts
through the years of handling and movements during construction and you'll
just drive yourself bonkers trying to keep everything pristine. Primer and
paint takes care of all but the worst deep gouges or scratches.
Disclaimer: These are my opinions only. Van's mantra applies nicely here:
"Just build the plane."
Hang in there.
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
RV10 '51
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | De-burr help ..... Please! |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Sears sells small deburring bits for motor tools (aka Dremel) that appear to be
very similar in material to scotchbrite. They are pointed shape and green in
color. I used about 5 of them since the beginning and they work perfectly in those
exact same areas. I just run them at around half speed, push the point into
the hole on both sides, works great for all small areas that need a little
polishing. They run about $4 bucks a peice but they are invaluable for doing the
cracks and crevices, don't run them at a high RPM, they wear out too fast.
Rick S.
40185
Wings
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
d="scan'208"; a="1058155421:sNHT3364236684"
| Subject: | Re: De-burr help ..... Please! |
--> RV10-List message posted by: James Hein <n8vim@arrl.net>
I don't remember exactly where I got them, but they have lasted forever!
I seem to think I got them at a local hobby shop.
Might want to check out http://www.towerhobbies.com
As everyone has said: Just take the burrs off so that you don't cut
yourself and build it. I think someone said that Vans says that 20% of
people don't even deburr at all, and that their parts ship in better
condition than most manufacturers assemble with.
-Jim
John Jessen wrote:
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
>
>Deburring bit? In the Dremel? Is this a Dremel deburring bit? I've been
>looking for such. Can you be more specific.
>
>Thanks,
>
>John Jessen
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Hein
>Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:20 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: De-burr help ..... Please!
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: James Hein <n8vim@arrl.net>
>
>Been there, Done that....
>
> I went to the hardware store and got a roll of "Plumbers Abrasive Roll".
>It's a 1" wide roll of, well, basically sandpaper, except its on a cloth
>backing so it doesn't rip easy. Take the parts and a piece of that roll and
>"floss away" :)
> The other thing I did is get a 1/8" round chainsaw file; It works well
>for the rounded parts between the flanges where they meet the web.
> Other than that, I've also used a deburring bit in the Dremel (it's only
>1/8" diameter.. good for tight spots.)
>
>Enjoy! Those are alot of ribs!
>
>-Jim 40384, just finished H.S.
>
>
>Deems Davis wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>>
>>OK, I''ve read Van's Manual about how hard 2024 Al is and how the
>>slightest scratch and turn into a crack, and how EVERYTHING needs to
>>be deburred, Ok I get the picture, BUT !!! what bout the spaces
>>between the flanges on ribs, bulkheads etc. you know the ones, the
>>ones that only have about 1/8 in between them, No way to get a
>>scotchbright wheel in there, I've tried a number of dremel bits, but
>>not found none that leaves a smooth edge. i'vve tried a variety of
>>fingernail files as well. So for some of you repeat offenders, and
>>otherwise experienced and skilled workers of aluminum magic, just how
>>important is it that these 'flange gaps' get deburred? I can get the
>>Scotchbrite wheel/s to do both edges of the flanges themselves, but
>>these 'gaps' are driving me crazy. I'm starting my HS and looking at
>>a number of them and thinking there's got be be a better way. (Or
>>perhaps no way?) The thoughts of dong the wings nexy bring tears to my
>>eyes.
>>
>>Deems Davis #406
>>
>>HS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aux fuel tanks? |
Guys, I'm a newcomer to building the -10, but have years of flight test
experience in high performance aircraft.
I would not - repeat not - add anything to the outboard section of the wing
that Van has not done structural analysis on to include flight tests.
I specifically recall a problem with flight test of the F-16 and outboard
stores that nearly took the outboard section of the wing off.
The structures guys said it would never happen (the torsional loads) until we
showed them on videotape.
They then said "if you let that continue, it would probably rip the wing
off......"
Just a thought from a guy who requires both the design engineer and flight
test folks to say "it's ok"......
grumpy
In a message dated 6/28/2005 4:09:11 PM Central Standard Time,
gyoung@cs-sol.com writes:
Having the weight at the end of the spar is typically a benefit to the load
distribution in flight. It can be a detriment to the landing loads though. Case
in point, my Navion tip tanks allow me to increase my gross weight BUT only
by the amount of fuel carried in the tip tanks. We are also cautioned to land
gently if the tips are filled. It was likely a no-analysis item back when the
STC was approved. Bending loads are one thing but it will also change the
handling and fore-aft sloshing will affect CG and may impart torsional loads to
the
wing. Look at Van's write-up on the wing design and load testing before you
think about modifying it.
Regards,
Greg Young
________________________________
--> RV10-List message posted by: Darton Steve <sfdarton@yahoo.com>
Having owned and flown a Cessna 310 for the last three
years and 500 hours I'm not concerned about stability
issues. C310 main tanks are the tip tanks, 50 gallons
per side, the aux tanks are in the wings only 15
gallons per side. This is a very stable aircraft. My
question would be about adding the loading to the end
of the spar?
Steve 40212 Wings
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: | Gauntlet to Scott |
Add twenty years to your personal skeleton and it will resemble the
condition I am in after such activity in my mid 20's over in the desert
of Central Oregon. With CRS, it won't be long before those memory's are
gone. Thanks for the response on the limp glove (Gauntlet). It was
interesting how Silent Jim resurfaced just long enough to avoid the
appropriate challenge. Showing Hartzell purchasers another alternative
and design consideration should awaken the masses. It has always amused
me that weight is always an attempt in aviation to be held to a minimum
- just the inverse of more usable Brake Mean Horsepower, more runway ,
more fuel and adequate air under the wings.
Why would anyone regularly carry ballast to effect a safe flight. Must
be like those European ships of old that carried Belgian Cobblestones in
there holds on the way to plundering the lumber of the Pacific NW.
W & Balance options, harmonic suppression and just the general
appearance of a well painted MT should move a few fence sitters from the
Tried and True Grey Metal props into the world of a high performance
three blade MT. Looking forward to Gerd's presentation at OSH on
Wednesday, July 27 (just four weeks from tomorrow).
I spent part of this weekend re-reading your posts on your progress.
The fitment on the windscreen is looking good.
John
503-453-6016
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gaunlet to Scott
Well John I probably will not fly until November at the earliest. My
panel is 8-10 weeks out from Aerocrafter but things are coming along
nicely. I hope to start with paint sometime in August or September, do
final panel install and finish work in October / November. I actually
thing November is pushing it for me. The finishing work really does
take a lot of time. I don't see why there will be any problems with the
MT though. With 1-3 people I will not need any weight in the back. With
4 and baggage I may build a place in the engine compartment that can be
easily outfitted with 15-20 lbs. of tungsten carbide. Anyway, I am
working on the cowling right now so I can get the proper measurements
needed to order the MT.
Unfortunately you hit the nail on the head when I came to bike riding
though. As you were sending out your e-mail I was in the middle of this
year's 24 hour Utah 1088 endurance motorcycle ride. Placed 6th this
year (a little disappointing for me). I had so much fun this year, it
was worth the time it took away from the plane. I rode 1418 miles in
23.5 hours. After I get the feeling back into my right hand I will be
able to start working on the plane again.
Scott Schmidt
Cell: 801-319-3094
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
________________________________
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: -10 Static Ports |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Lewis <Tim_Lewis@msm.umr.edu>
Kind of odd that he sells the static ports, but hasn't tested the
installation on his own aircraft. The test is easy, and cheap.
Instructions are at
<http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/phplinks/index.php?&PID=48>. This test is
what showed me that my RV-6 had unacceptable airspeed (and altitude)
errors as a result of using the static source on the certified heated
pitot-static tube. I went to the standard Van's pop rivet approach and
dropped my errors by two thirds or so.
Tim
--
Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
RV-6A N47TD -- 740 hrs
RV-10 #40059 under construction
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> Randy, Jesse, and anyone else that is flying,
>
> What did you use for your static ports? I am looking at using the
> safair1 kit but have heard that flush, or near flush, mount static ports
> introduce a large error in the 1 and 2 seat RV's. I asked Tony at
> SafeAir1 this question and got a bit of the run around (posted below for
> reference). The quality of his stuff looks to be quite good and I can
> live with a couple knot discrepancy, but I don't want to introduce a
> couple hundred foot error in my altimeter.
>
> Michael Sausen
> -10 #352
> Tailcone
>
>
>
> Michael,
>
> Thank you for your interest in SafeAir1 products.
>
> Like the great "primer wars", this subject comes up about every 6 months.
>
> Our static ports protrude beyond the skin by about .015" (skin thickness
> = .032"). We have sold hundreds static ports and NEVER had a single
> complaint from customer or a returned kit. I used flush ports on my
> RV-6 and have been flying since the spring of 2000 without an accident.
> Are my readings improper? I'm not sure how I'd know? All of my
> performance parameters are where Van predicted they should be. Perhaps
> my system is off 1 knot, 3 knots, or .005 knots? Or maybe it's the
> chase airplane with the pop rivets that's off by 2.7 knots? Are all pop
> rivets squeezed to the exact same thickness before the mandrel shears?
> Has Van's changed pop rivet suppliers? How thick is the boundary layer
> along the RV-X side skins where the ports are mounted? Are the boundary
> layers always the same? What if the aircraft with flush ports had a
> leaky static system? I'm not trying to beat you up for asking the
> question. I can only point to my success, and the success of our
> customers and say our ports seem to work in a satisfactory manner.
> Having said that, We've sold a lot of ports to RV-10 builders, but I
> don't know if any of them have flown yet.
>
> I am not aware of any static ports, including Van's /pop rivet of the
> day/, that have been designed and tested for use in experimental
> aircraft static systems. If you're not comfortable with our static
> ports, I suggest you stick with pop rivets per Van's plans.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tony Munday
> SafeAir1
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Michael Sausen
> *Sent:* Monday, June 27, 2005 9:42 PM
> *To:* CustomerCare@SafeAir1.com
> *Subject:* RV-10 pitot-static kit
>
> I'm interested in your pitot-static kit for the -10 I am building
> and was wondering if your machined static ports protrude above the
> skin similar to the Van's pop rivet style. The reason I ask is the
> flush mounts have shown to cause an improper reading on other RV models.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael Sausen
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Gauntlet to Scott |
<9F819487C44F0B4DBDB0CC0450824CEB019B5311@ehost005-2.exch005intermedia.net>
Just a random comment on W & B. Buy a 5 gallon collapsible plastic water container.
If you find you require "extra" weight, fill it with water & place it where
needed. You can get water at most airports & dispose of same almost anywhere
AND you don't have to carry the "extra" weight unless it's required. KABONG
(GBA & GWB) Do Not Archive
P.S. HRII N561FS now has 4 blade MT prop. Smooth, slower top end than the MT 3
or the Hartzel 2 blade. BUT sexy & did I say smooooooth.
Why yes, we have had all three on the same airplane.
----- Original Message -----
From: John W. Cox
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:10 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gauntlet to Scott
Add twenty years to your personal skeleton and it will resemble the condition
I am in after such activity in my mid 20's over in the desert of Central Oregon.
With CRS, it won't be long before those memory's are gone. Thanks for the
response on the limp glove (Gauntlet). It was interesting how Silent Jim resurfaced
just long enough to avoid the appropriate challenge. Showing Hartzell
purchasers another alternative and design consideration should awaken the masses.
It has always amused me that weight is always an attempt in aviation to
be held to a minimum - just the inverse of more usable Brake Mean Horsepower,
more runway , more fuel and adequate air under the wings.
Why would anyone regularly carry ballast to effect a safe flight. Must be like
those European ships of old that carried Belgian Cobblestones in there holds
on the way to plundering the lumber of the Pacific NW.
W & Balance options, harmonic suppression and just the general appearance of
a well painted MT should move a few fence sitters from the Tried and True Grey
Metal props into the world of a high performance three blade MT. Looking forward
to Gerd's presentation at OSH on Wednesday, July 27 (just four weeks from
tomorrow).
I spent part of this weekend re-reading your posts on your progress. The fitment
on the windscreen is looking good.
John
503-453-6016
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:41 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gaunlet to Scott
Well John I probably will not fly until November at the earliest. My panel is
8-10 weeks out from Aerocrafter but things are coming along nicely. I hope
to start with paint sometime in August or September, do final panel install and
finish work in October / November. I actually thing November is pushing it
for me. The finishing work really does take a lot of time. I don't see why there
will be any problems with the MT though. With 1-3 people I will not need
any weight in the back. With 4 and baggage I may build a place in the engine
compartment that can be easily outfitted with 15-20 lbs. of tungsten carbide.
Anyway, I am working on the cowling right now so I can get the proper measurements
needed to order the MT.
Unfortunately you hit the nail on the head when I came to bike riding though.
As you were sending out your e-mail I was in the middle of this year's 24 hour
Utah 1088 endurance motorcycle ride. Placed 6th this year (a little disappointing
for me). I had so much fun this year, it was worth the time it took away
from the plane. I rode 1418 miles in 23.5 hours. After I get the feeling
back into my right hand I will be able to start working on the plane again.
Scott Schmidt
Cell: 801-319-3094
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
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 |
|
Ok, I've got mixed emotions from my work session this evening. I riveted
the trailing edge of my rudder, tried to follow al the steps as best I
could, but I'm sure how I feel about the outcome. Translate that to: It's
flyable, but it's a long way from what I was working toward.
For those of you heading that direction, at least two things: make sure you
barely smear the thinnest coating of proseal possible along the wedge, and
don't use the bulky popsicle stick. Use a brush or gloved finger. I
learned a couple of nights ago on the board here (too late) that the proseal
is definitely non-structural. I made sure to get the goop all the way down
the length of the edge. I've got a few spots that, although not horrible, I
definitely had to use more rivet gun attention to get that part to lay down
flatter, so I had to be even more cautious about causing a hook.
The other thing is closely related. I made lap joints, but I bent the skins
(in retrospect) more than the few degrees called for in the instructions. I
thought I was giving myself extra goof-up room to squeeze the rivets without
upturning the edges, but in reality all I did was allow more proseal to stay
accumulated under the edges that caused the major of the two problems.
While I was riveting this evening, I was working against the proseal under
the lapped edge, which made it that much harder to get the nice, straight,
flat edge.
In short, 1) don't try to use all the proseal (I didn't do that either, but
I still used too much) and only smear that barest adequate quantity, and 2)
make the bends on your lap joints either barely or not at all perceptible;
it'll still work out.
Rob Wright
40392
On to rolling rudder leading edges tomorrow..
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: | -10 Static Ports |
Remind me not to buy from SafeAir1. what kind of business-generating reply
is that?
Rob Wright
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: -10 Static Ports
Randy, Jesse, and anyone else that is flying,
What did you use for your static ports? I am looking at using the safair1
kit but have heard that flush, or near flush, mount static ports introduce a
large error in the 1 and 2 seat RV's. I asked Tony at SafeAir1 this
question and got a bit of the run around (posted below for reference). The
quality of his stuff looks to be quite good and I can live with a couple
knot discrepancy, but I don't want to introduce a couple hundred foot error
in my altimeter.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352
Tailcone
Michael,
Thank you for your interest in SafeAir1 products.
Like the great "primer wars", this subject comes up about every 6 months.
Our static ports protrude beyond the skin by about .015" (skin thickness .032").
We have sold hundreds static ports and NEVER had a single complaint
from customer or a returned kit. I used flush ports on my RV-6 and have
been flying since the spring of 2000 without an accident. Are my readings
improper? I'm not sure how I'd know? All of my performance parameters are
where Van predicted they should be. Perhaps my system is off 1 knot, 3
knots, or .005 knots? Or maybe it's the chase airplane with the pop rivets
that's off by 2.7 knots? Are all pop rivets squeezed to the exact same
thickness before the mandrel shears? Has Van's changed pop rivet suppliers?
How thick is the boundary layer along the RV-X side skins where the ports
are mounted? Are the boundary layers always the same? What if the aircraft
with flush ports had a leaky static system? I'm not trying to beat you up
for asking the question. I can only point to my success, and the success of
our customers and say our ports seem to work in a satisfactory manner.
Having said that, We've sold a lot of ports to RV-10 builders, but I don't
know if any of them have flown yet.
I am not aware of any static ports, including Van's pop rivet of the day,
that have been designed and tested for use in experimental aircraft static
systems. If you're not comfortable with our static ports, I suggest you
stick with pop rivets per Van's plans.
Regards,
Tony Munday
SafeAir1
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sausen
Subject: RV-10 pitot-static kit
I'm interested in your pitot-static kit for the -10 I am building and was
wondering if your machined static ports protrude above the skin similar to
the Van's pop rivet style. The reason I ask is the flush mounts have shown
to cause an improper reading on other RV models.
Thanks,
Michael Sausen
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: | -10 Static Ports |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
Hi Michael,
Your post raised my curiosity, since I have installed the Cleaveland flush
ports and still have a looong way to go before flight testing (currently
finishing wings).
I am not an aeronautical engineer and my knowledge of aerodynamics is
limited to what you learn during flight training. However, I think static
port performance (and hence altitude measurement) will be related to the
port position relative to the boundary layer along the fuse. What I recall
is that the air molecules directly touching the surface are almost
motionless. As you move away from the surface, the air molecules move faster
to the free stream velocity. So if the static port is perfectly flush
with the surface, the velocity of air at that point will be close to zero.
Pressure differential due to Bernoulli should therefore also be close to
zero and the reported altitude should reflect the constant static pressure.
If you use a rivet, I expect the head will stick into the boundary layer and
you would you get pressure affects due to Bernoulli.
I'm happy to be re-educated if I'm off the mark, but this thinking seems to
indicate that a flush static port is the best way to go. I'm comforted that
this is confirmed by AC 43.13. I think the AOA installations I have seen
also use flush ports for similar reasons.
BTW, I saw a Safeair1 flush port installation on the weekend, and their
kit/installation looks like value for money.
cheers,
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Subject: RE: RV10-List: -10 Static Ports
Sorry, maybe I should have said not a very clear answer. ;-) As I
stated, my concern is not the airspeed, it's the Alt readout. I have
checked the archives (saw yours, very informative) and other places and some
people reported errors of a couple hundred feet with flush static ports.
Now I can easily see a 50' error if the static port is inside the boundary
layer, especially that far back on the tail. I don't recall which model had
the errors, and I'm sure the couple hundred foot errors are extremes but
I'm not willing to jump on either band wagon without some real information.
This whole subject might very well be a moot point as I don't know if anyone
is flying with flush on the -10's yet. Hence the email for more concrete
info on our specific model.
Not trying to nit pick here but altitude readouts in an IFR aircraft need
to be reasonably precise. 50ft error may be acceptable but anything more
than 100' in IFR is most certainly not and +/- 1 inch of pressure is about
+/- 900 feet. Doesn't take much to introduce a large error, just want to
make sure I'm not going to by going with the flush. Keep in mind I am far
from knocking Tony and I have heard nothing but good things about his stuff,
I just want the facts. If they don't exist yet that's fine too. I just
might be the one to supply them to someone else down the road. :-)
Michael
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Subject: Re: RV10-List: -10 Static Ports
Don't think "run around" is quite the right statement. I have posted on this
subject before. Check archives. We "rolled our own" static system from ACS
parts. We have a two GPS system in HRII N561FS. Pilot III in front & Garmin
196 in rear. Two totally independent GPS systems of each other & the on
board static system. They all read within a knot or two of each other at any
given moment in time. The GPS's vary with the static system because of the
wind direction and speed. I guess that I could try to take a "snapshot"
photo of all three in the same frame to compare outputs but not sure that
would prove anything. We've flown with RV-4's, -6, -6A, -8, -8A, Yankee,
Cessna's, Pipers, Mooney's that have different "systems" (pop rivet, flush
ports, extended ports [putting a washer under the pop rivet head] and paint
flush). All seem to be within 1 to 3% of each other at any given moment.
Chasing the "perfect" reading is, in my not too humble opinion, is like a
dog chasing his tail. Ya go around & around till you finally get a hold of
the tail. What have you proven ?, nothing. Ya just wind up with a mouth full
of fir. Because the very last thing any static system does is remain
"static". Your plane with your installation will differ slightly with
everyone else's but as long as it gives out consistent data and you fly
within its envelope you should be fine. N561FS also has AOA but that's a
totally different topic. KABONG Do Not Archive
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | QB Fuse Gear Mount Bolts |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
I was putting the main gear mounts in for the final drilling and was just
about to rig a long wrench as several others have indicated. Just for kicks
I took out the wood spacer at the end of the spar carry through and it turns
out you can reach in there from the side and get to all the bolts you need
to. Hopefully this will help those who haven't spent hours on this aspect
yet.
Marcus
40286
Wings & Finishing kit ship next week
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | -10 Static Ports. Just my opinion |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
I almost sure that the Safeair1 static vents are NOT flush nor are the ones
we used from ACS. The major part of the port is the size of half dollar but
it has a raised center that sticks thru a hole smaller than a dime AND
sticks out of the fuse side. On N561FS the ACS ones still stick out after
painting. I didn't measure them but they stick out about as far as a "pop"
rivet head would. I'm going buy the Safeair1 kit the next time.
The AOA ports we have are flush on the wing BUT they read differential
pressure between the top & bottom surfaces. Whereas the static ports are a
balanced average from the sides.
KABONG Do Not Archive. (GBA & GWB)
----- Original Message -----
From: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: -10 Static Ports
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Your post raised my curiosity, since I have installed the Cleaveland flush
> ports and still have a looong way to go before flight testing (currently
> finishing wings).
>
> I am not an aeronautical engineer and my knowledge of aerodynamics is
> limited to what you learn during flight training. However, I think static
> port performance (and hence altitude measurement) will be related to the
> port position relative to the boundary layer along the fuse. What I
> recall
> is that the air molecules directly touching the surface are almost
> motionless. As you move away from the surface, the air molecules move
> faster
> to the free stream velocity. So if the static port is perfectly flush
> with the surface, the velocity of air at that point will be close to zero.
> Pressure differential due to Bernoulli should therefore also be close to
> zero and the reported altitude should reflect the constant static
> pressure.
> If you use a rivet, I expect the head will stick into the boundary layer
> and
> you would you get pressure affects due to Bernoulli.
>
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: QB Fuse Gear Mount Bolts |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Man that was a good idea....wish I would have tried that one.
Sounds much better than the agonizing slow process I did.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Marcus Cooper wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>
> I was putting the main gear mounts in for the final drilling and was just
> about to rig a long wrench as several others have indicated. Just for kicks
> I took out the wood spacer at the end of the spar carry through and it turns
> out you can reach in there from the side and get to all the bolts you need
> to. Hopefully this will help those who haven't spent hours on this aspect
> yet.
>
> Marcus
> 40286
> Wings & Finishing kit ship next week
>
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: | Gauntlet to Scott |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
As a certificated LTA pilot I know a lot about both hot air and the use of water
ballast with airships. The retaining containers must be permanently fixed into
the aircraft and listed in the empty weight calculation. With Amphibs the floats
often require some creative, permanent lead or other fixed (and declared)
weights. Often found as little total weight as possible and as far aft as practical
(like the tie down eyelet). However, I seem to remember the need that
ballast be secured for all possible turbulence that can be encountered in flight.
I don't think a collapsible plastic water container whether how small or
large would pass an official ramp test. Can't imagine VAN supporting that either.
But then, that was the whole issue of the post. Why carry ballast again....
KABONG?
Can't respond to the MT query till Jim lets someone test the darn thing and establish
the new arm and moment. Scott has a valid Hall Pass till this fall. Wouldn't
it be novel if a 10 could fly lighter without the use of 70 pounds of hot
water bottles shoved into all the little storage places. I can just see the
NTSB reconstructing the accident report on W&B after the fact. "Oh well, I popped
my water, had to execute an immediate landing till I could take on more
fuel.... The pains got too close together, I guess I did not make it". ;-).
Okay, John - three on the same plane, lets here some speeds, MP and rpm reports.
I know the 3 blade is better harmonically and the additional drag with the
fourth is oh well. I can show you a Garrett TPE on a LIV with Five, but that's
another matter. Let's do hear.
This water won't float my boat.
$00.019
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Gauntlet to Scott
Just a random comment on W & B. Buy a 5 gallon collapsible plastic water container.
If you find you require "extra" weight, fill it with water & place it where
needed. You can get water at most airports & dispose of same almost anywhere
AND you don't have to carry the "extra" weight unless it's required. KABONG
(GBA & GWB) Do Not Archive
P.S. HRII N561FS now has 4 blade MT prop. Smooth, slower top end than the MT 3
or the Hartzell 2 blade. BUT sexy & did I say smooooooth.
Why yes, we have had all three on the same airplane.
----- Original Message -----
From: John W. Cox
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gauntlet to Scott
Add twenty years to your personal skeleton and it will resemble the condition I
am in after such activity in my mid 20's over in the desert of Central Oregon.
With CRS, it won't be long before those memory's are gone. Thanks for the response
on the limp glove (Gauntlet). It was interesting how Silent Jim resurfaced
just long enough to avoid the appropriate challenge. Showing Hartzell purchasers
another alternative and design consideration should awaken the masses.
It has always amused me that weight is always an attempt in aviation to be held
to a minimum - just the inverse of more usable Brake Mean Horsepower, more runway
, more fuel and adequate air under the wings.
Why would anyone regularly carry ballast to effect a safe flight. Must be like
those European ships of old that carried Belgian Cobblestones in there holds on
the way to plundering the lumber of the Pacific NW.
W & Balance options, harmonic suppression and just the general appearance of a
well painted MT should move a few fence sitters from the Tried and True Grey Metal
props into the world of a high performance three blade MT. Looking forward
to Gerd's presentation at OSH on Wednesday, July 27 (just four weeks from tomorrow).
I spent part of this weekend re-reading your posts on your progress. The fitment
on the windscreen is looking good.
John
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: -10 Static Ports. Just my opinion |
G'day all,
JOHN STARN wrote:
> I almost sure that the Safeair1 static vents are NOT flush
All respect to you John, but as someone with the Safeair1 ports firmly
fixed to my side skins, they ARE flush. The kit is fantastic quality
and I have absolutely no regrets about going with Safeair1. Will let
you know in 3-4 years how accurate they are, but in all my research I
have only found 3-4 comments about problems, and there's gotta be more
flush ports flying than that.
Pic attached (Actually looks a little recessed in the pic, but that is
just because of the angle it is taken from).
Seeya,
Scott Lewis
RV-10 40172 VH-DRS
Adelaide, South Australia
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Tube Flaring technique |
What's the trick to good flares? I did fine for half of the tubes and then managed
to crack every one. I tried to carefully cut with a tube cutter, a little
at a time, make sure the ends are squared, deburred. I have one of those sliding
block flaring tools (37deg). One fella in the archive mentioned leaving
5/16" of the tube protruding through the block and turn 7 half turns.
Anh
#141
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Tank Sealant Quantity? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
What quantity of tank sealant was required to seal the tanks? Was the
quart kit enough to complete both tanks?
Thanks...
-Sean #40303
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Gauntlet to Scott |
<9F819487C44F0B4DBDB0CC0450824CEB019B5316@ehost005-2.exch005intermedia.net>
--> RV10-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Well I guess I'll just have to permanently attach the 16 oz water bottle I
carry with me in the cockpit. As you said, size does not matter. Does the
permanently attachment rule also apply to tool bags, golf bags, luggage etc.
etc. that is carried & used in the W&B calculations.
But the whole idea is NOT to carry bricks, lead shot etc. ALL the time,
moving them about as required. I'm sure that the same netting that holds
down bricks, lead, extra oil etc would hold down a water bottle. (Like the
ones off-roaders use) The whole idea was to carry an empty container until
needed, fill it and emptied when no longer required.
The MT four blade prop we have is not the same one recommended for the
RV-10. HRII N561FS is powered by Lyc. IO-540 250 HP. We didn't do a full set
of engineering studies on the props, (nor are we likely to do so just for
your edification) we just like to fly in the Rocket. John Harmon might have
some data as our prop is the same one he tried on his Reno HRIII racer. Not
"fast" enough to race behind but great for our use.
This debate sounds a lot like the old Bonanza aft tank that was required to
be emptied first so as to not move the envelope beyond the rear limits. BUT
I agree with your comment that it would be "nice" if we could just kick the
tires, light the fire & zoom away without W&B considerations in the RV-10
and most every other airplane. I know the W&B numbers on N561FS and will
care again when I get closer to building the -10 kit. KABONG Do Not
Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gauntlet to Scott
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>
> As a certificated LTA pilot I know a lot about both hot air and the use of
> water ballast with airships. The retaining containers must be permanently
> fixed into the aircraft and listed in the empty weight calculation. With
> Amphibs the floats often require some creative, permanent lead or other
> fixed (and declared) weights. Often found as little total weight as
> possible and as far aft as practical (like the tie down eyelet). However,
> I seem to remember the need that ballast be secured for all possible
> turbulence that can be encountered in flight. I don't think a collapsible
> plastic water container whether how small or large would pass an official
> ramp test. Can't imagine VAN supporting that either. But then, that was
> the whole issue of the post. Why carry ballast again.... KABONG?
>
> Can't respond to the MT query till Jim lets someone test the darn thing
> and establish the new arm and moment. Scott has a valid Hall Pass till
> this fall. Wouldn't it be novel if a 10 could fly lighter without the use
> of 70 pounds of hot water bottles shoved into all the little storage
> places. I can just see the NTSB reconstructing the accident report on W&B
> after the fact. "Oh well, I popped my water, had to execute an immediate
> landing till I could take on more fuel.... The pains got too close
> together, I guess I did not make it". ;-).
>
> Okay, John - three on the same plane, lets here some speeds, MP and rpm
> reports. I know the 3 blade is better harmonically and the additional
> drag with the fourth is oh well. I can show you a Garrett TPE on a LIV
> with Five, but that's another matter. Let's do hear.
>
> This water won't float my boat.
>
> $00.019
> Just a random comment on W & B. Buy a 5 gallon collapsible plastic water
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: -10 Static Ports. Just my opinion |
<001301c57c5a$f5e20b60$e3926947@starnfamily> <42C21E48.2000603@tpg.com.au>
--> RV10-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Sorry, I did say "almost sure", but I had not seen the part up close nor of
the installation, only the photo's of the kit. It would appear that some
more material needs to be ground off the face so the end sticks thru
further. SAFEAIR are you lurking out there ?.
We used the ACS part# 15160, page #348 but changed out the attaching fitting
to a Nylo-seal fitting# 269-N 1/4 tube X 1/8 pipe thread 90 degree elbow
page# 115. As noted these ACS units do protrude thru the skin (with paint)
about the same as the head of a "pop" rivet. You might want to drill out
those three (times 2) rivets & grind or have the depth of the cut increased.
It's got to be easier now than in a few years and after paint.
Again I'm sorry for my assumption. So as not make another error, Scott you
did countersink the face of the port ? KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Lewis" <rv10@tpg.com.au>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: -10 Static Ports. Just my opinion
> G'day all,
>
> JOHN STARN wrote:
>> I almost sure that the Safeair1 static vents are NOT flush
>
> All respect to you John, but as someone with the Safeair1 ports firmly
> fixed to my side skins, they ARE flush. The kit is fantastic quality
> and I have absolutely no regrets about going with Safeair1. Will let
> you know in 3-4 years how accurate they are, but in all my research I
> have only found 3-4 comments about problems, and there's gotta be more
> flush ports flying than that.
>
> Pic attached (Actually looks a little recessed in the pic, but that is
> just because of the angle it is taken from).
>
> Seeya,
> Scott Lewis
> RV-10 40172 VH-DRS
> Adelaide, South Australia
>
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! --
|