Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:16 AM - Re: Gauntlet to Scott (Eric Panning)
2. 05:08 AM - Instrument Panel Cutouts (Marcus Cooper)
3. 05:16 AM - Re: Instrument Panel Cutouts (DOUGPFLYRV@aol.com)
4. 05:47 AM - Re: Tube Flaring technique (Gary Specketer)
5. 05:51 AM - Re: Gauntlet to Scott (Gary Specketer)
6. 06:05 AM - Re: Gaunlet to Scott (Mark Ritter)
7. 06:26 AM - Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? (Tim Olson)
8. 07:17 AM - Re: Gauntlet to Scott (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
9. 07:23 AM - Re: -10 Static Ports. Just my opinion (LarryRosen@comcast.net)
10. 07:44 AM - Re: Firewall Insualtion? (Randy DeBauw)
11. 08:05 AM - Re: Gear-on Height (Randy DeBauw)
12. 08:59 AM - Re: Gauntlet to Scott (Jerry Grimmonpre)
13. 09:05 AM - Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? (Sean Stephens)
14. 09:19 AM - Re: Tube Flaring technique (Rick)
15. 09:30 AM - QB in my future (John Jessen)
16. 09:38 AM - Re: QB in my future (owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com)
17. 09:42 AM - Re: QB in my future (owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com)
18. 09:46 AM - Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? (Eric Panning)
19. 10:07 AM - Re: QB in my future (Tim Olson)
20. 10:09 AM - Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
21. 10:36 AM - Re: QB in my future (John Jessen)
22. 11:02 AM - Flightline Interiors need a 10 to fit some upholstery in. (Randy's Abros mail)
23. 11:02 AM - Re: QB in my future (John Jessen)
24. 11:04 AM - Re: QB in my future (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
25. 11:05 AM - Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
26. 12:05 PM - Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? (Rick)
27. 01:04 PM - Re: QB in my future (owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com)
28. 01:21 PM - Re: QB in my future (John Jessen)
29. 01:47 PM - Re: QB in my future (Doerr, Ray R [NTK])
30. 02:28 PM - Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? (PJ Seipel)
31. 02:34 PM - Re: Aux fuel tanks? (Jesse Saint)
32. 03:02 PM - Re: Aux fuel tanks? (Tim Olson)
33. 03:03 PM - Re: Gaunlet to Scott (Scott Schmidt)
34. 03:50 PM - Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? (Sean Stephens)
35. 05:48 PM - Re: Aux fuel tanks? (GenGrumpy@aol.com)
36. 06:28 PM - Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? (PJ Seipel)
37. 06:49 PM - Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? (Sean Stephens)
38. 07:41 PM - Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? (McGANN, Ron)
39. 09:10 PM - Re: Tube Flaring technique (DejaVu)
40. 09:19 PM - Re: Tube Flaring technique (linn walters)
41. 09:41 PM - Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? (Eric Panning)
42. 10:09 PM - Re: Van's Conduit In Wing (Eric Panning)
43. 10:24 PM - Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? (John W. Cox)
44. 10:59 PM - Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? (McGANN, Ron)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=inHDIW65qLxcabSgYm71u6MkGUEDhibcqLUSgfw8LnVmivDC/7SQF+BrrnUcSA1lMjXs/BNz6sGV1KT5mlr0Vbnhxw0oewjCW2qyzhW+wvrVJvE8zbqsfgYr3CzICewV6fxTsGfWSJoIbuMKjvMBXTjnGxZQkx0UtFcrMwRfRDk=
;
| Subject: | Gauntlet to Scott |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning <ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
Hi John,
The factory RV-10 with the IO-540 and metal prop flies
with 50 lbs total of lead shot in two burlap bags
sitting in the baggage compartment. They are not
secured.
I believe they get a better flare with the weight aft.
My understanding is this is fairly typical situation
for 4 passenger planes. Cherokee 235, Cessna 182?, etc
have diminished elevator authority in flare due to
W&B.
It is also very common for helicopters to have to move
ballast to compensate for passenger loads.
Come to think of it, High performance sailplanes carry
10's to 100's of pounds of water ballast to enhance
cruise speed. I believe they dump it in flight if the
race is off and they need to hunt for lift. I imagine
they might dump it prior to landing as well. Given the
times aloft and alitudes they must have a good
solution to prevent freezing, etc.
40150
Fuselage unpacked
Working on the flaps...
--- "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
> --> 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
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:53 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Instrument Panel Cutouts |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
Does anyone have any experience with the folks at Experimental Air with
generating a CAD picture of the panel and then cutting it with the water
jet. Seems like a pretty neat deal and reasonably priced assuming they do
good work.
Thanks,
Marcus
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: Instrument Panel Cutouts |
He cut the panel for our RV7A and we are pleased. I recommend him.
Doug Preston
BHM
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: | Tube Flaring technique |
One of the tricks is to have fresh tubing. My Glasair kit had tubing
that would not flair. I had to get replacement tubing. Cut a sample or
two and bring them to a friend and have him try it. That will tell you
if it is technique or tubing.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu
Subject: RV10-List: 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 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: | Gauntlet to Scott |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Gary Specketer" <speckter@comcast.net>
I have gone a diferent route. I purchaced a 2 blade Aero Composites
propeller aerocomposites.com It is way lighter than the Hartzel and
some lighter than the MT because it is only 2 blade. I am hoping that
it will solvew the CG issue without balast.
Gary
Original Message-----
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
--> 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 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: | Gaunlet to Scott |
DNA: do not archive
Its-Bogus: do not forward to list - No Plain-Text Section
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
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: Tank Sealant Quantity? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
If you're really careful with it, you may get by on one can.
I know I wasn't quite as conservative as I could have been,
and I used a fair share of 2 cans. If a builder was
reasonably careful, 2 cans could do all of the control
surfaces and the tanks, and they could buy the 2 cans
right away. Store them in the freezer for increased
shelf life. To me, I'd rather spend an extra $40 and
not get slowed down. You'll actually use a little on
the firewall, and a couple other places down the road too.
I used some to seal my hot air intake vent gaps.
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
Sean Stephens wrote:
> --> 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 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: | Gauntlet to Scott |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
Until you get to the other end of the scale and have four adults on board and low
fuel, then your c.g. could be too far aft . . .
I vote that Van's includes their weight and balance information earlier in the
kit process, instead of just in the finish kit. It would be interesting to try
and get W&B for the aircraft shell, not counting engine, electrical, or anything.
Then one could do a mental exercise of adding components and see where
your c.g. ends up.
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Gary Specketer
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gauntlet to Scott
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Gary Specketer" <speckter@comcast.net>
I have gone a diferent route. I purchaced a 2 blade Aero Composites
propeller aerocomposites.com It is way lighter than the Hartzel and
some lighter than the MT because it is only 2 blade. I am hoping that
it will solvew the CG issue without balast.
Gary
Original Message-----
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
--> 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 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: -10 Static Ports. Just my opinion |
I have not yet installed my Safe Air vents, but I did a test fit and the port does
stick out past the skin. It sticks out at least as far as paint would. I
will make a measurement when I get back to the shop in a couple of days.
Larry Rosen
#356
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN"
>
> 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"
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:06 PM
> 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
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I have not yet installed my Safe Air vents, but I did a test fit and the port does
stick out past the skin. It sticks out at least as far as paint would. I will
make a measurement when I get back to the shop in a couple of days.
Larry Rosen
#356
-------------- Original message --------------
-- 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>
To: <RV10-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:06 PM
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,
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Firewall Insualtion? |
I have not installed the firewall sound insulation yet. What is
interesting is that a good friend of mine flew with me in 10 the other
day and was astounded at how quite the 10 is without the insulation in
place. He was sure it would be one of the first things that I would
want to get done after the first flights. Now we said he wouldn't think
you would even need it. I will be putting it in. The material I have is
from Hi Tec foams. Randy
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Byron
Gillespie
Subject: RV10-List: 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 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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy@abros.com>
Be bold Tim. Put some legs under that thing as send us some photos.
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Gauntlet to Scott |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
W & B, Something to kick around ...
Has anyone considered building-in a small tool compartment into the empanage
to help with W&B? A compartment designed for dedicated storage of
individual tools. Whereby individual tools could have their special "nest"
to fit into and would not rattle around. They wouldn't weigh much but their
moment arm would have an influence on resolving balance issues. Please
recall how some components are packed and shipped in molded styrofoam and
have their own little molded space the shape of that component. Could
something like this be done safely if considered part of an MEL (minimum
equipment list)?
Regards ...
Jerry Grimmonpre
7A ... still shop building
> --> 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.
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: Tank Sealant Quantity? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
Thanks Tim,
I read the writeup on your site. I was hoping to be able to use the 6
oz. cartridges as I've got a ProSeal air gun and it works really well.
Unfortunately the 6 oz. cartridges are pricey (~$23 each) compared to
the quart kit. Maybe I can just pick up one 6 oz. cartridge and re-use
the cartridge/plunger/nozzle with the quart kit.
-Sean #40303
Tim Olson wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> If you're really careful with it, you may get by on one can.
> I know I wasn't quite as conservative as I could have been,
> and I used a fair share of 2 cans. If a builder was
> reasonably careful, 2 cans could do all of the control
> surfaces and the tanks, and they could buy the 2 cans
> right away. Store them in the freezer for increased
> shelf life. To me, I'd rather spend an extra $40 and
> not get slowed down. You'll actually use a little on
> the firewall, and a couple other places down the road too.
> I used some to seal my hot air intake vent gaps.
>
> Tim
>
> Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
> Current project: Fuselage
>
> Sean Stephens wrote:
>> --> 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 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: | Tube Flaring technique |
DNA: do not archive
Its-Bogus: do not forward to list - No Plain-Text Section
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
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 |
|
d="scan'208"; a="53192623:sNHT20402588"
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Ok. I figured I wouldn't do a QB because it would save me almost $10,000
big ones. However, while doing some heavy thinking in the shower, I now
have come up with a way to rationalize my way into a QB. It really will
cost only $3,000 big ones because, and let me know if this is false
economics, I'm not spending close to $7,000 during the year's time it saves
me in building, on a 172 rental and staying current. I'm in the air one
year sooner, hopefully, and since I typically fly 60-70 hours per year, at
$110 per hour rental charge, and since the operating costs will be there for
the -10 no matter what, the $$$ for the QB replaces $$$ for the rental guys.
I have in my head from somewhere that the QB saves around 800 hours build
time, and for me that'd be about 40 weeks. So, given travel and vacations
and whatever, that's about a year.
Waddya think?
John Jessen
(doing priming of VS and Rudder and big time rationalizing)
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
Did you run that rationale past your wife yet? : )
TDT
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Jessen
Subject: RV10-List: QB in my future
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Ok. I figured I wouldn't do a QB because it would save me almost $10,000
big ones. However, while doing some heavy thinking in the shower, I now
have come up with a way to rationalize my way into a QB. It really will
cost only $3,000 big ones because, and let me know if this is false
economics, I'm not spending close to $7,000 during the year's time it saves
me in building, on a 172 rental and staying current. I'm in the air one
year sooner, hopefully, and since I typically fly 60-70 hours per year, at
$110 per hour rental charge, and since the operating costs will be there for
the -10 no matter what, the $$$ for the QB replaces $$$ for the rental guys.
I have in my head from somewhere that the QB saves around 800 hours build
time, and for me that'd be about 40 weeks. So, given travel and vacations
and whatever, that's about a year.
Waddya think?
John Jessen
(doing priming of VS and Rudder and big time rationalizing)
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
Sounds like you might have a plan! Other option is to go QB with only
one of the kits (wings or fuselage). This has been discussed
previously, but my recommendation would definitely be the fuselage.
Bob #40105
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Subject: RV10-List: QB in my future
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Ok. I figured I wouldn't do a QB because it would save me almost
$10,000
big ones. However, while doing some heavy thinking in the shower, I now
have come up with a way to rationalize my way into a QB. It really will
cost only $3,000 big ones because, and let me know if this is false
economics, I'm not spending close to $7,000 during the year's time it
saves
me in building, on a 172 rental and staying current. I'm in the air one
year sooner, hopefully, and since I typically fly 60-70 hours per year,
at
$110 per hour rental charge, and since the operating costs will be there
for
the -10 no matter what, the $$$ for the QB replaces $$$ for the rental
guys.
I have in my head from somewhere that the QB saves around 800 hours
build
time, and for me that'd be about 40 weeks. So, given travel and
vacations
and whatever, that's about a year.
Waddya think?
John Jessen
(doing priming of VS and Rudder and big time rationalizing)
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=OcBSQMvV4ZEaPYT12zxZ1HjeQJs2wpMAIrV10hQhdQDJdRzUFqSKvGabagw/Vr6F7baybrVrrwAOSDTjQs+u7NmJNZuJAyuTS7sloD88+IJhMOHHTGsV8uid1KjpipP3XlWyS7QW8qFGOL9yV1Z851LvikPAyqON6GoRglSLm+I=
;
| Subject: | Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning <ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
Sean,
The other downside of the tubes is for many sections
you have alot left over and for the tanks you will be
pressed to dispense and rivet before it sets up on
you. I started with the tubes but switched to mixing
small batches from the cans and things are much
easier. I use a small digital postal scale ($25) for
getting the mix right and mix ~ 40 gram batches.
I've read about at least one person thinning proseal
with MEK to ease application. Is this accepted
practice? It may be messy, I think the whole tank
sealing process is more tedious than difficult.
Based on my experience with the tubes it would be very
difficult to reuse them. Your cost and time with MEK,
etc to clean them out would be better spent on
popsicle sticks and clecos... :) Most of the mess is
in the riveting anyway.
Eric
--- Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net> wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens
> <schmoboy@cox.net>
>
> Thanks Tim,
>
> I read the writeup on your site. I was hoping to be
> able to use the 6
> oz. cartridges as I've got a ProSeal air gun and it
> works really well.
> Unfortunately the 6 oz. cartridges are pricey (~$23
> each) compared to
> the quart kit. Maybe I can just pick up one 6 oz.
> cartridge and re-use
> the cartridge/plunger/nozzle with the quart kit.
>
> -Sean #40303
>
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: QB in my future |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I think, if that works for you for justification, it should be good.
It doesn't matter how a man justifies his toys. ;)
I'm guessing that the RV-10 will have a REAL operating cost of
upwards of $75/hr anyway, when you take into account the
engine reserve, fuel, oil, and maintenance, so the difference
isn't all that fantastic. Of course, the maintenance costs
might be a little lower, pushing these numbers to the high
side, since most everything in the plane will be brand new,
and cheaper to buy than a certified ship.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
John Jessen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
>
> Ok. I figured I wouldn't do a QB because it would save me almost $10,000
> big ones. However, while doing some heavy thinking in the shower, I now
> have come up with a way to rationalize my way into a QB. It really will
> cost only $3,000 big ones because, and let me know if this is false
> economics, I'm not spending close to $7,000 during the year's time it saves
> me in building, on a 172 rental and staying current. I'm in the air one
> year sooner, hopefully, and since I typically fly 60-70 hours per year, at
> $110 per hour rental charge, and since the operating costs will be there for
> the -10 no matter what, the $$$ for the QB replaces $$$ for the rental guys.
> I have in my head from somewhere that the QB saves around 800 hours build
> time, and for me that'd be about 40 weeks. So, given travel and vacations
> and whatever, that's about a year.
>
> Waddya think?
>
> John Jessen
> (doing priming of VS and Rudder and big time rationalizing)
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Tank Sealant Quantity? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
I concur with Eric. I started out on the tail kit with a couple of the
cartridges to use on trailing edges. You not only spend a lot for them,
you don't use most of it (cartridges also have a faster cure time than
the quart kits). It's actually really handy to be able to just mix a
very small batch from the quart cans.
Bob #40105
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric Panning
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tank Sealant Quantity?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning
<ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
Sean,
The other downside of the tubes is for many sections
you have alot left over and for the tanks you will be
pressed to dispense and rivet before it sets up on
you. I started with the tubes but switched to mixing
small batches from the cans and things are much
easier. I use a small digital postal scale ($25) for
getting the mix right and mix ~ 40 gram batches.
I've read about at least one person thinning proseal
with MEK to ease application. Is this accepted
practice? It may be messy, I think the whole tank
sealing process is more tedious than difficult.
Based on my experience with the tubes it would be very
difficult to reuse them. Your cost and time with MEK,
etc to clean them out would be better spent on
popsicle sticks and clecos... :) Most of the mess is
in the riveting anyway.
Eric
--- Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net> wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens
> <schmoboy@cox.net>
>
> Thanks Tim,
>
> I read the writeup on your site. I was hoping to be
> able to use the 6
> oz. cartridges as I've got a ProSeal air gun and it
> works really well.
> Unfortunately the 6 oz. cartridges are pricey (~$23
> each) compared to
> the quart kit. Maybe I can just pick up one 6 oz.
> cartridge and re-use
> the cartridge/plunger/nozzle with the quart kit.
>
> -Sean #40303
>
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 |
|
d="scan'208"; a="56099443:sNHT32054292"
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Fortunately, my "wife" wants me to do the QB, but I've been hesitant because
I keep thinking of other things to buy with the $$$, and I don't mind
building. Or so I thought.
The one thing that this Emp/Cone does for the builder is give him/her
experience at building flying surfaces and fuselage. My thought the other
night while experiencing the infinity of deburring and prepping is, how many
fuselages and flying surfaces does one need to build before one feels
accomplished?
Anyway, the real problem is not that. It is Randy. His finished -10 sits
within 10 seconds walk time from my aluminum parts. Every time I see it I
want to be flying, thus the heavy duty rationalization.
I think a QB is about to be ordered.
John Jessen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Subject: RE: RV10-List: QB in my future
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
--> <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
Did you run that rationale past your wife yet? : )
TDT
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Jessen
Subject: RV10-List: QB in my future
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Ok. I figured I wouldn't do a QB because it would save me almost $10,000
big ones. However, while doing some heavy thinking in the shower, I now
have come up with a way to rationalize my way into a QB. It really will
cost only $3,000 big ones because, and let me know if this is false
economics, I'm not spending close to $7,000 during the year's time it saves
me in building, on a 172 rental and staying current. I'm in the air one
year sooner, hopefully, and since I typically fly 60-70 hours per year, at
$110 per hour rental charge, and since the operating costs will be there for
the -10 no matter what, the $$$ for the QB replaces $$$ for the rental guys.
I have in my head from somewhere that the QB saves around 800 hours build
time, and for me that'd be about 40 weeks. So, given travel and vacations
and whatever, that's about a year.
Waddya think?
John Jessen
(doing priming of VS and Rudder and big time rationalizing)
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Flightline Interiors need a 10 to fit some upholstery in. |
I just go off of the phone with Abby at Flightline Interiors. She is looking
for one additional RV10 that she can use to test fit some interior panels
in. She is looking for someone in a 150 mile radius of Milwaukee WI.. You
can call here at 262-364-6166. This may be an opportunity to save a little
on your interior. I used her for my seats and she is a pleasure to work
with. Randy
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
d="scan'208"; a="56111147:sNHT30122136"
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Yes. But the operating cost of the finished airplane will be there at the
end of 2 years or 3 years or 4 years building time, no matter what. It's
what is spent between now and then that I'm focusing on. If I spend $$$
towards rentals to keep current while building, and it takes me an extra
year to build......
John Jessen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: Re: RV10-List: QB in my future
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I think, if that works for you for justification, it should be good.
It doesn't matter how a man justifies his toys. ;) I'm guessing that the
RV-10 will have a REAL operating cost of upwards of $75/hr anyway, when you
take into account the engine reserve, fuel, oil, and maintenance, so the
difference isn't all that fantastic. Of course, the maintenance costs might
be a little lower, pushing these numbers to the high side, since most
everything in the plane will be brand new, and cheaper to buy than a
certified ship.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
John Jessen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
>
> Ok. I figured I wouldn't do a QB because it would save me almost
> $10,000 big ones. However, while doing some heavy thinking in the
> shower, I now have come up with a way to rationalize my way into a QB.
> It really will cost only $3,000 big ones because, and let me know if
> this is false economics, I'm not spending close to $7,000 during the
> year's time it saves me in building, on a 172 rental and staying
> current. I'm in the air one year sooner, hopefully, and since I
> typically fly 60-70 hours per year, at $110 per hour rental charge,
> and since the operating costs will be there for the -10 no matter what,
the $$$ for the QB replaces $$$ for the rental guys.
> I have in my head from somewhere that the QB saves around 800 hours
> build time, and for me that'd be about 40 weeks. So, given travel and
> vacations and whatever, that's about a year.
>
> Waddya think?
>
> John Jessen
> (doing priming of VS and Rudder and big time rationalizing)
>
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 |
|
Shhhh, not so loud! I have my wife convinced that this is just something everyone
needs, like a car.
Michael
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Tim Olson
Subject: Re: RV10-List: QB in my future
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I think, if that works for you for justification, it should be good.
It doesn't matter how a man justifies his toys. ;)
I'm guessing that the RV-10 will have a REAL operating cost of
upwards of $75/hr anyway, when you take into account the
engine reserve, fuel, oil, and maintenance, so the difference
isn't all that fantastic. Of course, the maintenance costs
might be a little lower, pushing these numbers to the high
side, since most everything in the plane will be brand new,
and cheaper to buy than a certified ship.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
John Jessen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
>
> Ok. I figured I wouldn't do a QB because it would save me almost $10,000
> big ones. However, while doing some heavy thinking in the shower, I now
> have come up with a way to rationalize my way into a QB. It really will
> cost only $3,000 big ones because, and let me know if this is false
> economics, I'm not spending close to $7,000 during the year's time it saves
> me in building, on a 172 rental and staying current. I'm in the air one
> year sooner, hopefully, and since I typically fly 60-70 hours per year, at
> $110 per hour rental charge, and since the operating costs will be there for
> the -10 no matter what, the $$$ for the QB replaces $$$ for the rental guys.
> I have in my head from somewhere that the QB saves around 800 hours build
> time, and for me that'd be about 40 weeks. So, given travel and vacations
> and whatever, that's about a year.
>
> Waddya think?
>
> John Jessen
> (doing priming of VS and Rudder and big time rationalizing)
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Tank Sealant Quantity? |
I believe you are supposed to use Toluene for thinning Proseal. Don't know if
MEK is compatible but wouldn't want to find out on the tanks.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric Panning
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tank Sealant Quantity?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning
--> <ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
Sean,
The other downside of the tubes is for many sections you have alot left over and
for the tanks you will be pressed to dispense and rivet before it sets up on
you. I started with the tubes but switched to mixing small batches from the cans
and things are much easier. I use a small digital postal scale ($25) for getting
the mix right and mix ~ 40 gram batches.
I've read about at least one person thinning proseal with MEK to ease application.
Is this accepted practice? It may be messy, I think the whole tank sealing
process is more tedious than difficult.
Based on my experience with the tubes it would be very difficult to reuse them.
Your cost and time with MEK, etc to clean them out would be better spent on popsicle
sticks and clecos... :) Most of the mess is in the riveting anyway.
Eric
--- Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net> wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens
> <schmoboy@cox.net>
>
> Thanks Tim,
>
> I read the writeup on your site. I was hoping to be able to use the 6
> oz. cartridges as I've got a ProSeal air gun and it works really well.
> Unfortunately the 6 oz. cartridges are pricey (~$23
> each) compared to
> the quart kit. Maybe I can just pick up one 6 oz.
> cartridge and re-use
> the cartridge/plunger/nozzle with the quart kit.
>
> -Sean #40303
>
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: | Tank Sealant Quantity? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
I used 6 tubes and 1 can, which also did the ailerons and flap trailing edges.
FWIW, order the B-2 sealant in the tubes, it gives you the same working time as
the can stuff. The B-2 = 2 hours...B-1/2 = 1/2 hour etc.The tubes are good for
doing the rear baffle and going over the rivets after your finished. The can
works good for doing the ribs a few at a time and the little pieces when only
1 or 2 oz is needed. The tube and air gun make a real neat job when you have
a large area such as the baffles and it is real nice to use over the dimples,
cut a small notch in the tip so it will glide over the dimples. I would do it
the same way again but I admit two cans would have been much less money than
going with the tubes. Oh yeah, I also used the ATS mixer adapter to stir the tubes...chuck
it up in a 1/2" drill and it mixes the material perfectly. You can
also buy empty tubes for around three bucks each from ATS. Lots of options but
the bottom line is either way it's a mess and you'll be elated when finished.
Rick S.
40185
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr@mail.sprint.com>
Sounds good except for the 800 hour savings. It took me 300 hours to
get my Fuse to the Quick build stage and around 250 hours for the wings.
I would except the savings to be more like 600 hour savings.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
40250
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Subject: RV10-List: QB in my future
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Ok. I figured I wouldn't do a QB because it would save me almost
$10,000
big ones. However, while doing some heavy thinking in the shower, I now
have come up with a way to rationalize my way into a QB. It really will
cost only $3,000 big ones because, and let me know if this is false
economics, I'm not spending close to $7,000 during the year's time it
saves
me in building, on a 172 rental and staying current. I'm in the air one
year sooner, hopefully, and since I typically fly 60-70 hours per year,
at
$110 per hour rental charge, and since the operating costs will be there
for
the -10 no matter what, the $$$ for the QB replaces $$$ for the rental
guys.
I have in my head from somewhere that the QB saves around 800 hours
build
time, and for me that'd be about 40 weeks. So, given travel and
vacations
and whatever, that's about a year.
Waddya think?
John Jessen
(doing priming of VS and Rudder and big time rationalizing)
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 |
|
d="scan'208"; a="56179887:sNHT30046728"
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Thanks, Ray. How many hours per week are you averaging?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doerr, Ray R
[NTK]
Subject: RE: RV10-List: QB in my future
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]"
--> <Ray.R.Doerr@mail.sprint.com>
Sounds good except for the 800 hour savings. It took me 300 hours to get my
Fuse to the Quick build stage and around 250 hours for the wings.
I would except the savings to be more like 600 hour savings.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
40250
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Subject: RV10-List: QB in my future
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Ok. I figured I wouldn't do a QB because it would save me almost $10,000
big ones. However, while doing some heavy thinking in the shower, I now
have come up with a way to rationalize my way into a QB. It really will
cost only $3,000 big ones because, and let me know if this is false
economics, I'm not spending close to $7,000 during the year's time it saves
me in building, on a 172 rental and staying current. I'm in the air one
year sooner, hopefully, and since I typically fly 60-70 hours per year, at
$110 per hour rental charge, and since the operating costs will be there for
the -10 no matter what, the $$$ for the QB replaces $$$ for the rental guys.
I have in my head from somewhere that the QB saves around 800 hours build
time, and for me that'd be about 40 weeks. So, given travel and vacations
and whatever, that's about a year.
Waddya think?
John Jessen
(doing priming of VS and Rudder and big time rationalizing)
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr@mail.sprint.com>
I have been averaging just over 20 hours per week. On July 19th, I will
have been working at it for 1 year and will have just over 1,000 hours
in. I have planned on 20 hours per week for 50 weeks per year. I hope
to be flying at the 2,000 mark. (Oshkosh 2006)
Thank You
Ray Doerr
40250
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Subject: RE: RV10-List: QB in my future
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Thanks, Ray. How many hours per week are you averaging?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doerr, Ray R
[NTK]
Subject: RE: RV10-List: QB in my future
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]"
--> <Ray.R.Doerr@mail.sprint.com>
Sounds good except for the 800 hour savings. It took me 300 hours to
get my
Fuse to the Quick build stage and around 250 hours for the wings.
I would except the savings to be more like 600 hour savings.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
40250
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Subject: RV10-List: QB in my future
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Ok. I figured I wouldn't do a QB because it would save me almost
$10,000
big ones. However, while doing some heavy thinking in the shower, I now
have come up with a way to rationalize my way into a QB. It really will
cost only $3,000 big ones because, and let me know if this is false
economics, I'm not spending close to $7,000 during the year's time it
saves
me in building, on a 172 rental and staying current. I'm in the air one
year sooner, hopefully, and since I typically fly 60-70 hours per year,
at
$110 per hour rental charge, and since the operating costs will be there
for
the -10 no matter what, the $$$ for the QB replaces $$$ for the rental
guys.
I have in my head from somewhere that the QB saves around 800 hours
build
time, and for me that'd be about 40 weeks. So, given travel and
vacations
and whatever, that's about a year.
Waddya think?
John Jessen
(doing priming of VS and Rudder and big time rationalizing)
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: PJ Seipel <seipel@seznam.cz>
You can get empty cartridges in several sizes from Aircraft Spruce.
They're pretty inexpensive. The 2 1/2 oz size works pretty well if
you're going to go that route. I never used anything larger than that.
Fill them from your quart can and you get the convenience of the gun
without the huge price.
If you go that route don't forget the nozzles and sealing piece that
goes in the back 'cause they come separately.
PJ
40032
Sean Stephens wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
>
> Thanks Tim,
>
> I read the writeup on your site. I was hoping to be able to use the 6
> oz. cartridges as I've got a ProSeal air gun and it works really
> well. Unfortunately the 6 oz. cartridges are pricey (~$23 each)
> compared to the quart kit. Maybe I can just pick up one 6 oz.
> cartridge and re-use the cartridge/plunger/nozzle with the quart kit.
>
> -Sean #40303
>
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>>
>> If you're really careful with it, you may get by on one can.
>> I know I wasn't quite as conservative as I could have been,
>> and I used a fair share of 2 cans. If a builder was
>> reasonably careful, 2 cans could do all of the control
>> surfaces and the tanks, and they could buy the 2 cans
>> right away. Store them in the freezer for increased
>> shelf life. To me, I'd rather spend an extra $40 and
>> not get slowed down. You'll actually use a little on
>> the firewall, and a couple other places down the road too.
>> I used some to seal my hot air intake vent gaps.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
>> Current project: Fuselage
>>
>> Sean Stephens wrote:
>>
>>> --> 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 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 |
|
Grumpy,
I am not going to argue the point with you, but I think probably the only
similarities between the RV-10 and the F-16 is that they both fly. There
are a lot of certified airplanes that are much more similar to the RV-10
than the F-16 that have added tip tanks as an STC, without restructuring the
wing. These planes aren't pulling 8G's in an outside loop, though, which
may require a little more engineering.
We have actually discovered that we can fly at 12,000 feet burning 9.5
gal/hour and cruising at 178 without the wheel or gear fairings. Adding
those should take us up to about 190 at least (from the reports we have read
- namely Dan Checkoway). This will give us over 1,000 miles of range with
an hour of reserve. We have thought all along that we wanted aux tanks, but
just realized that we can probably get by without them. Just food for
thought.
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 GenGrumpy@aol.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aux fuel tanks? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Not to nit pick...really don't intend it that way, but...
To Everyone....when you post speed specs, please add the
extra keystrokes to specify either MPH or KTS. At least
these I can assume are MPH, or you have a very large engine.
I plan to deal exclusively in KTS, so my specs will be posted
that way.
Very cool about your 1,000 mile range.... Now, is that
1000 NM, or 1000 Statute. ;) Again, I calculate everything
in Nautical.
Tim
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Jesse Saint wrote:
> Grumpy,
>
>
>
> I am not going to argue the point with you, but I think probably the
> only similarities between the RV-10 and the F-16 is that they both fly.
> There are a lot of certified airplanes that are much more similar to the
> RV-10 than the F-16 that have added tip tanks as an STC, without
> restructuring the wing. These planes arent pulling 8Gs in an outside
> loop, though, which may require a little more engineering.
>
>
>
> We have actually discovered that we can fly at 12,000 feet burning 9.5
> gal/hour and cruising at 178 without the wheel or gear fairings. Adding
> those should take us up to about 190 at least (from the reports we have
> read namely Dan Checkoway). This will give us over 1,000 miles of
> range with an hour of reserve. We have thought all along that we wanted
> aux tanks, but just realized that we can probably get by without them.
> Just food for thought.
>
>
>
> Jesse Saint
>
> I-TEC, Inc.
>
> jesse@itecusa.org <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
>
> www.itecusa.org <http://www.itecusa.org>
>
> W: 352-465-4545
>
> C: 352-427-0285
>
> F: 815-377-3694
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *GenGrumpy@aol.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:18 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: 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 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: | Gaunlet to Scott |
You basically just give them the dimensions from the front of the flange where
the prop bolts on to the front of the cowling. They then cut the spinner to match
this. You are still OK though. You will just have measure the distance
from the end of your spinner to the mounting area, add =BC" and then fit your
cowling to that dimension. Hope that makes sense.
I am hoping I will be able set up the plane so that I will never have a CG problem as long as I have 50% of the fuel in the wings and full seats and baggage. With four people in the plane, someone will probably have to use the bathroom before long anyway unless we all have stadium pals or stadium gals (check these out, they are great for endurance motorcycle riding). http://www.stadiumpal.com/
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gaunlet to Scott
Scott - - Help me understand what cowling measurements you need before ordering
the MT prop. Have I screwed up ordering the MT prop before even thinking about
fitting the cowling?
Mark
>From: "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt@ussynthetic.com>
>Reply-To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gaunlet to Scott
>Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:40:36 -0600
>
>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
>Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 10:19 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>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 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: | Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
Thanks PJ, that sounds exactly like what I need. For others looking for
these, the cartridge components aren't listed in their online catalog.
Have to call and get the part number or have the print catalog handy,
which I don't, so I ordered the free print catalog.
-Sean #40303 - Doing the "yuk" work on the flaps.
do not archive
PJ Seipel wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: PJ Seipel <seipel@seznam.cz>
>
> You can get empty cartridges in several sizes from Aircraft Spruce.
> They're pretty inexpensive. The 2 1/2 oz size works pretty well if
> you're going to go that route. I never used anything larger than
> that. Fill them from your quart can and you get the convenience of
> the gun without the huge price.
> If you go that route don't forget the nozzles and sealing piece that
> goes in the back 'cause they come separately.
>
> PJ
> 40032
>
> Sean Stephens wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
>>
>> Thanks Tim,
>>
>> I read the writeup on your site. I was hoping to be able to use the
>> 6 oz. cartridges as I've got a ProSeal air gun and it works really
>> well. Unfortunately the 6 oz. cartridges are pricey (~$23 each)
>> compared to the quart kit. Maybe I can just pick up one 6 oz.
>> cartridge and re-use the cartridge/plunger/nozzle with the quart kit.
>>
>> -Sean #40303
>>
>>
>> Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>>>
>>> If you're really careful with it, you may get by on one can.
>>> I know I wasn't quite as conservative as I could have been,
>>> and I used a fair share of 2 cans. If a builder was
>>> reasonably careful, 2 cans could do all of the control
>>> surfaces and the tanks, and they could buy the 2 cans
>>> right away. Store them in the freezer for increased
>>> shelf life. To me, I'd rather spend an extra $40 and
>>> not get slowed down. You'll actually use a little on
>>> the firewall, and a couple other places down the road too.
>>> I used some to seal my hot air intake vent gaps.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
>>> Current project: Fuselage
>>>
>>> Sean Stephens wrote:
>>>
>>>> --> 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 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: Aux fuel tanks? |
Jesse - not to argue a point either.
The huge transients we saw were in 1g level flight, and were totally related
to airspeed and weight in the outboard section of the wing as compared to
inner weight (such as full inner tanks and full outer tanks????).
I run the world's largest ground wind tunnel test facility (Arnold Air Force
Base), so I've seen some very strange things happen when all of the engineers
said that it would not happen.
And you do not want to have this happen to you for the first time in actual
flight (you'd rather that Van's guys prove it first).
My thoughts for whatever they're worth.
Grumpy - #40404
In a message dated 6/29/2005 4:39:47 PM Central Standard Time,
jesse@itecusa.org writes:
Grumpy,
I am not going to argue the point with you, but I think probably the only
similarities between the RV-10 and the F-16 is that they both fly. There are a
lot of certified airplanes that are much more similar to the RV-10 than the
F-16 that have added tip tanks as an STC, without restructuring the wing. These
planes aren=E2=80=99t pulling 8G=E2=80=99s in an outside loop, though, which may
require a
little more engineering.
We have actually discovered that we can fly at 12,000 feet burning 9.5
gal/hour and cruising at 178 without the wheel or gear fairings. Adding those
should take us up to about 190 at least (from the reports we have read =E2=80=93
namely Dan
Checkoway). This will give us over 1,000 miles of range with an hour of
reserve. We have thought all along that we wanted aux tanks, but just realized
that we can probably get by without them. Just food for thought.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
http://www.itecusa.org/
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tank Sealant Quantity? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: PJ Seipel <seipel@seznam.cz>
You're right! That's funny because they used to be listed; that's how I
found them. You can search on the part numbers below if you want to
order online.
09-00758 PLUNGER FOR PRO SEAL CARTRIDGE $.67
09-00759 PRO SEAL CARTRIDGE ONLY 2-1/2 $.66
09-00760 PRO SEAL CARTRIDGE ONLY 6 OZ $.58
EA4180 NOZZLE FOR PRO-SEAL KITS $1.20
PJ
40032
Sean Stephens wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
>
> Thanks PJ, that sounds exactly like what I need. For others looking
> for these, the cartridge components aren't listed in their online
> catalog. Have to call and get the part number or have the print
> catalog handy, which I don't, so I ordered the free print catalog.
>
> -Sean #40303 - Doing the "yuk" work on the flaps.
>
>
> PJ Seipel wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: PJ Seipel <seipel@seznam.cz>
>>
>> You can get empty cartridges in several sizes from Aircraft Spruce.
>> They're pretty inexpensive. The 2 1/2 oz size works pretty well if
>> you're going to go that route. I never used anything larger than
>> that. Fill them from your quart can and you get the convenience of
>> the gun without the huge price.
>> If you go that route don't forget the nozzles and sealing piece that
>> goes in the back 'cause they come separately.
>>
>> PJ
>> 40032
>>
>
>
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: Tank Sealant Quantity? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
Thanks again!
do not archive
PJ Seipel wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: PJ Seipel <seipel@seznam.cz>
>
> You're right! That's funny because they used to be listed; that's how
> I found them. You can search on the part numbers below if you want to
> order online.
>
> 09-00758 PLUNGER FOR PRO SEAL CARTRIDGE $.67
> 09-00759 PRO SEAL CARTRIDGE ONLY 2-1/2 $.66
> 09-00760 PRO SEAL CARTRIDGE ONLY 6 OZ $.58
> EA4180 NOZZLE FOR PRO-SEAL KITS $1.20
>
> PJ
> 40032
>
> Sean Stephens wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net>
>>
>> Thanks PJ, that sounds exactly like what I need. For others looking
>> for these, the cartridge components aren't listed in their online
>> catalog. Have to call and get the part number or have the print
>> catalog handy, which I don't, so I ordered the free print catalog.
>>
>> -Sean #40303 - Doing the "yuk" work on the flaps.
>>
>>
>> PJ Seipel wrote:
>>
>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: PJ Seipel <seipel@seznam.cz>
>>>
>>> You can get empty cartridges in several sizes from Aircraft Spruce.
>>> They're pretty inexpensive. The 2 1/2 oz size works pretty well if
>>> you're going to go that route. I never used anything larger than
>>> that. Fill them from your quart can and you get the convenience of
>>> the gun without the huge price.
>>> If you go that route don't forget the nozzles and sealing piece that
>>> goes in the back 'cause they come separately.
>>>
>>> PJ
>>> 40032
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Tank Sealant Quantity? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
Link below supports Michael's position to thin with Toluene and not MEK.
< http://www.vansairforce.net/articles/tank_sealant.pdf
<http://www.vansairforce.net/articles/tank_sealant.pdf> >
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: Tank Sealant Quantity?
I believe you are supposed to use Toluene for thinning Proseal. Don't know
if MEK is compatible but wouldn't want to find out on the tanks.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [
mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
<mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com> ] On Behalf Of Eric Panning
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tank Sealant Quantity?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning
--> <ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
Sean,
The other downside of the tubes is for many sections you have alot left over
and for the tanks you will be pressed to dispense and rivet before it sets
up on you. I started with the tubes but switched to mixing small batches
from the cans and things are much easier. I use a small digital postal scale
($25) for getting the mix right and mix ~ 40 gram batches.
I've read about at least one person thinning proseal with MEK to ease
application. Is this accepted practice? It may be messy, I think the whole
tank sealing process is more tedious than difficult.
Based on my experience with the tubes it would be very difficult to reuse
them. Your cost and time with MEK, etc to clean them out would be better
spent on popsicle sticks and clecos... :) Most of the mess is in the
riveting anyway.
Eric
--- Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net> wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens
> <schmoboy@cox.net>
>
> Thanks Tim,
>
> I read the writeup on your site. I was hoping to be able to use the 6
> oz. cartridges as I've got a ProSeal air gun and it works really well.
> Unfortunately the 6 oz. cartridges are pricey (~$23
> each) compared to
> the quart kit. Maybe I can just pick up one 6 oz.
> cartridge and re-use
> the cartridge/plunger/nozzle with the quart kit.
>
> -Sean #40303
>
====================================
RV10-List Email Forum -
more:
bsp;
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
====================================
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: | Re: Tube Flaring technique |
MessageI had a friend A&P mechanic come by the house tonight with his tool, which
was the same as mine. He tried about a dozen times and everyone of his cracked
also. He also tried to dip the tube in Alodine for about 15min to soften
it some-no joy. He tried a couple more while taking note of the position of
the crack. They all cracked about the same place along the tube. He also looked
at the lip with a magnifying glass after only one turn and could detect the
crack starting. Couldn't see any obvious defect to the tube. He concluded that
it was a bad batch of tubing that I got.
Anh
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Specketer
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 8:46 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Tube Flaring technique
One of the tricks is to have fresh tubing. My Glasair kit had tubing that would
not flair. I had to get replacement tubing. Cut a sample or two and bring
them to a friend and have him try it. That will tell you if it is technique
or tubing.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 11:12 PM
To: RV10
Subject: RV10-List: 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 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: Tube Flaring technique |
DejaVu wrote:
> I had a friend A&P mechanic come by the house tonight with his tool,
> which was the same as mine. He tried about a dozen times and everyone
> of his cracked also. He also tried to dip the tube in Alodine for
> about 15min to soften it some-no joy.
That's because Alodine is a chromium conversion coating. If you leave
it in for a really long time, Alodine will slowly eat the aluminum ....
and it tkes a really long time. But, it won't corrode!!!
Linn
do not archive
> He tried a couple more while taking note of the position of the
> crack. They all cracked about the same place along the tube. He also
> looked at the lip with a magnifying glass after only one turn and
> could detect the crack starting. Couldn't see any obvious defect to
> the tube. He concluded that it was a bad batch of tubing that I got.
> Anh
> #141
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gary Specketer <mailto:speckter@comcast.net>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 8:46 AM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Tube Flaring technique
>
> One of the tricks is to have fresh tubing. My Glasair kit had
> tubing that would not flair. I had to get replacement tubing.
> Cut a sample or two and bring them to a friend and have him try
> it. That will tell you if it is technique or tubing.
> Gary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 11:12 PM
> To: RV10
> Subject: RV10-List: 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 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 |
|
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=SRQaK1pl7t/IhPLA0xshF/BbDxFkzTUfJmdSUJigkcaM4c5AVCP7fZasYP//SOYMlwKbCBZLDpEgqq93YjYsmRAnz4aNY8L0E6IoSpELVtqq47+oK6FGF4Mx/63vPG6Q8X3vFUi51qSkRzH4zDKqjM2xrvDMkL2j5ByPaWJsbUI=
;
| Subject: | Tank Sealant Quantity? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning <ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
Thanks,
I didn't thin it on the left tank. Wasn't that bad so
I will likely use it straight on the right. Good to
know though. Perhaps I will try it on something none
critical like the trailing edges. The web site I saw
the builder thinned out until he could spread with a
small acid brush. (Also used for applying flux for
welding, etc)
As to the tubes, I guess if you have the air gun and
get the empty tubes, then fill them in small batches,
this might be the best way. However, the messy part is
still mostly riveting and not the application.
Eric
--- "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com> wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "McGANN, Ron"
> <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
>
> Link below supports Michael's position to thin with
> Toluene and not MEK.
>
> <
>
http://www.vansairforce.net/articles/tank_sealant.pdf
>
<http://www.vansairforce.net/articles/tank_sealant.pdf>
> >
>
> 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)
> Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2005 3:34 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Tank Sealant Quantity?
>
>
>
> I believe you are supposed to use Toluene for
> thinning Proseal. Don't know
> if MEK is compatible but wouldn't want to find out
> on the tanks.
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [
> mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com> ] On
> Behalf Of Eric Panning
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:46 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tank Sealant Quantity?
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning
> --> <ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
>
> Sean,
>
> The other downside of the tubes is for many sections
> you have alot left over
> and for the tanks you will be pressed to dispense
> and rivet before it sets
> up on you. I started with the tubes but switched to
> mixing small batches
> from the cans and things are much easier. I use a
> small digital postal scale
> ($25) for getting the mix right and mix ~ 40 gram
> batches.
>
> I've read about at least one person thinning proseal
> with MEK to ease
> application. Is this accepted practice? It may be
> messy, I think the whole
> tank sealing process is more tedious than difficult.
>
> Based on my experience with the tubes it would be
> very difficult to reuse
> them. Your cost and time with MEK, etc to clean them
> out would be better
> spent on popsicle sticks and clecos... :) Most of
> the mess is in the
> riveting anyway.
>
> Eric
>
> --- Sean Stephens <schmoboy@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > --> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens
> > <schmoboy@cox.net>
> >
> > Thanks Tim,
> >
> > I read the writeup on your site. I was hoping to
> be able to use the 6
> > oz. cartridges as I've got a ProSeal air gun and
> it works really well.
> > Unfortunately the 6 oz. cartridges are pricey
> (~$23
> > each) compared to
> > the quart kit. Maybe I can just pick up one 6 oz.
> > cartridge and re-use
> > the cartridge/plunger/nozzle with the quart kit.
> >
> > -Sean #40303
> >
>
>
>
> ====================================
> RV10-List Email Forum -
> more:
> bsp;
> s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ====================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 42
| 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=jlHtMan8qPA1ZerF+xxPQWPQKjzA38/oEI0s+3c8skE9zsH3VgaU8Uc7FiMcHGryEAFBs6ous9aDx7fatk4hp1bvFXQRkRvCptdX1NYiZWHG4Opw1P7phtZBrkABGmQewfSlewY6JdOvU3aY1G7HsnwkJVZPua0I/QAIL0TMt84=
;
| Subject: | Re: Van's Conduit In Wing |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning <ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
More conduit questions....
I've decided to use the van's conduit and picked up 50
feet of it from them today.
Looks like I need to drill the rib holes from the
current 5/8ths to 11/16ths for the smaller outer
radius of the corrigated conduit. The other option
would be to drill to the outer radius of the conduit
and then hold it in place somehow.
Which is the preferred method? I'm guessing drill
11/16ths, stuff it though and it will self lock. Is
this correct?
Thanks!
Eric
Message 43
| 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: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Ron, thanks for sharing the hard work, accurate research and reason why
MEK should be avoided as a viscosity reducer.
John Cox - KUAO
-----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: Tank Sealant Quantity?
--> RV10-List message posted by: "McGANN, Ron"
<ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
Link below supports Michael's position to thin with Toluene and not MEK.
< http://www.vansairforce.net/articles/tank_sealant.pdf
<http://www.vansairforce.net/articles/tank_sealant.pdf> >
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: Tank Sealant Quantity?
I believe you are supposed to use Toluene for thinning Proseal. Don't
know
if MEK is compatible but wouldn't want to find out on the tanks.
Michael
Message 44
| 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: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
Thanks John, but I just provided the URL. Paul Trotter did all the hard
yakka.
cheers,
Ron
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Tank Sealant Quantity?
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Ron, thanks for sharing the hard work, accurate research and reason why
MEK should be avoided as a viscosity reducer.
John Cox - KUAO
-----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: Tank Sealant Quantity?
--> RV10-List message posted by: "McGANN, Ron"
<ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
Link below supports Michael's position to thin with Toluene and not MEK.
< http://www.vansairforce.net/articles/tank_sealant.pdf
<http://www.vansairforce.net/articles/tank_sealant.pdf> >
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: Tank Sealant Quantity?
I believe you are supposed to use Toluene for thinning Proseal. Don't
know
if MEK is compatible but wouldn't want to find out on the tanks.
Michael
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! --
|