---------------------------------------------------------- RV10-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 08/18/05: 57 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:27 AM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Richard Bibb) 2. 05:41 AM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (linn walters) 3. 06:34 AM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Russell Daves) 4. 07:40 AM - wing storage racks (Chris Hukill) 5. 08:01 AM - Odyssey and metal jackets (David McNeill) 6. 08:05 AM - akro ... was Re: Getting Trim System to work (linn walters) 7. 08:09 AM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Tim Olson) 8. 08:11 AM - Re: wing storage racks (Tim Olson) 9. 08:20 AM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Scott Schmidt) 10. 08:45 AM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (John W. Cox) 11. 08:46 AM - Re: DVD () 12. 09:11 AM - Re: akro ... was Re: Getting Trim System to work (Rick) 13. 09:11 AM - Re: Falcon pitot tube (Warren Gretz) 14. 09:27 AM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Tim Olson) 15. 09:31 AM - Re: wing storage racks (Jim Combs) 16. 09:44 AM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Dan Checkoway) 17. 10:12 AM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (John W. Cox) 18. 10:14 AM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (RV Builder (Michael Sausen)) 19. 10:32 AM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Dan Checkoway) 20. 10:56 AM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Dan Checkoway) 21. 11:39 AM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (RV Builder (Michael Sausen)) 22. 12:16 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Rick) 23. 12:26 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Brandon Yost) 24. 12:27 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Tim Olson) 25. 12:52 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Dan Checkoway) 26. 01:16 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Lloyd, Daniel R.) 27. 01:41 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Dan Checkoway) 28. 02:08 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Lloyd, Daniel R.) 29. 02:20 PM - Re: wing storage racks (Russell Daves) 30. 02:36 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (John W. Cox) 31. 02:38 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Tim Olson) 32. 02:55 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Tim Dawson-Townsend) 33. 03:03 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Dan Checkoway) 34. 03:09 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Russell Daves) 35. 03:15 PM - Re: Aerobatic Forum?? (Russell Daves) 36. 03:23 PM - Re: Aerobatic Forum?? (Tim Dawson-Townsend) 37. 04:41 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Marcus Cooper) 38. 05:29 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Scott Schmidt) 39. 05:30 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Scott Schmidt) 40. 06:16 PM - Re: wing storage racks (bob.kaufmann) 41. 06:20 PM - Re: akro ... was Re: Getting Trim System to work (bob.kaufmann) 42. 06:29 PM - -10 akro .... was Re: Getting Trim System to work (linn walters) 43. 06:43 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (linn walters) 44. 07:07 PM - Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with aerobatics) (Kent Forsythe) 45. 07:25 PM - Re: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with aerobatics) (RV Builder (Michael Sausen)) 46. 07:34 PM - Re: -10 akro .... was Re: Getting Trim System to work (bob.kaufmann) 47. 07:42 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Carl Franz) 48. 07:44 PM - Re: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with aerobatics) (Tim Olson) 49. 07:46 PM - Re: -10 akro .... was Re: Getting Trim System to work (bob.kaufmann) 50. 07:46 PM - Re: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with (Rick) 51. 07:48 PM - Re: -10 akro .... was Re: Getting Trim System to work (Rick) 52. 07:56 PM - Re: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with (Rick) 53. 07:57 PM - Re: -10 akro .... was Re: Getting Trim System to work (Rick) 54. 08:02 PM - Re: Getting Trim System to work (Rick) 55. 08:06 PM - Re: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with aerobatics) (Indran Chelvanayagam) 56. 09:00 PM - Re: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with aerobatics) (Deems Davis) 57. 09:23 PM - Re: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with aerobatics) (Tim Olson) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:27:52 AM PST US From: "Richard Bibb" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work I don't know specifically on the RV-10 but I doubt the 2 degree difference will make any difference as full trim deflection will likely never be needed. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lorenz Malmstr=F6m To: rv10-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:29 AM Subject: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work Hi Guys I have been trying to get the trim system to work - with limited success. My best effort is 33=B0 down - instead of the 35=B0 required (right side). The 'up'-travel is 27=B0 - the required amount is not even mentioned in the plans. I don't get both sides aligned in the 0=B0 position. I have checked the plans several times and can't find any 'builder induced' error. From those of you that have gone through this process I'd like to know if you had similar experiences and if so what the solution was. Does anybody know the deflections? For a potentially nose heavy plane I'd rather know the exact up position than the down position. Thanks in advance Lorenz Malmstr=F6m 40280 Wings (& Trim System) http://www.malmstrom.ch/RV10.htm ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:41:38 AM PST US From: linn walters Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work Richard Bibb wrote: > I don't know specifically on the RV-10 but I doubt the 2 degree > difference will make any difference as full trim deflection will > likely never be needed. Needed? Probably not, but it surely will tighten up the loop. Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :-) For those that are humourously challenged, that's a joke. But, I'm sure somebody will loop it and roll it. :-( Trust me. ;-) Linn do not archive > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Lorenz Malmstrm > To: rv10-list@matronics.com > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:29 AM > Subject: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > > Hi Guys > > > > I have been trying to get the trim system to work - with limited > success. My best effort is 33 down - instead of the 35 required > (right side). The 'up'-travel is 27 - the required amount is not > even mentioned in the plans. I don't get both sides aligned in the > 0 position. I have checked the plans several times and can't find > any 'builder induced' error. > > > > From those of you that have gone through this process I'd like to > know if you had similar experiences and if so what the solution was. > > > > Does anybody know the deflections? For a potentially nose heavy > plane I'd rather know the exact up position than the down position. > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > Lorenz Malmstrm > > 40280 Wings (& Trim System) > > http://www.malmstrom.ch/RV10.htm > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:34:36 AM PST US From: "Russell Daves" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work I know of at least one Texas RV-10 builder and one Nevada RV-10 builder who will loop and roll their RV-10's when finished. ----- Original Message ----- From: linn walters To: rv10-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 7:44 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work Richard Bibb wrote: I don't know specifically on the RV-10 but I doubt the 2 degree difference will make any difference as full trim deflection will likely never be needed. Needed? Probably not, but it surely will tighten up the loop. Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :-) For those that are humourously challenged, that's a joke. But, I'm sure somebody will loop it and roll it. :-( Trust me. ;-) Linn do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: Lorenz Malmstr=F6m To: rv10-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:29 AM Subject: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work Hi Guys I have been trying to get the trim system to work - with limited success. My best effort is 33=B0 down - instead of the 35=B0 required (right side). The 'up'-travel is 27=B0 - the required amount is not even mentioned in the plans. I don't get both sides aligned in the 0=B0 position. I have checked the plans several times and can't find any 'builder induced' error. From those of you that have gone through this process I'd like to know if you had similar experiences and if so what the solution was. Does anybody know the deflections? For a potentially nose heavy plane I'd rather know the exact up position than the down position. Thanks in advance Lorenz Malmstr=F6m 40280 Wings (& Trim System) http://www.malmstrom.ch/RV10.htm ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:40:30 AM PST US From: "Chris Hukill" Subject: RV10-List: wing storage racks I am preparing to accept delivery of my quickbuild wings and fuselage. Does anyone have plans for a storage rack for the wings? I need them to sit on the leading edges, on a rolling rack. Pictures and dimensions of the wings would be helpful. Thanx in advance. Chris Hukill (working on rudder) ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:01:42 AM PST US From: "David McNeill" Subject: RV10-List: Odyssey and metal jackets --> RV10-List message posted by: "David McNeill" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Reservepower" Subject: RE: Visitor Comments Good Morning, Here are the operating temps: With jacket: -40 degrees F to 176 degrees F Without jacket: -40 F to 113 F Thank you John Edwards -----Original Message----- From: dlm46007@cox.net [mailto:dlm46007@cox.net] Subject: Visitor Comments McNeill Country: USA Phone: Fax: Comments what are the operating temperatures for the Odyssey 680 with and without metal jacket? ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:05:02 AM PST US From: linn walters Subject: akro ... was Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work Russell Daves wrote: > I know of at least one Texas RV-10 builder and one Nevada RV-10 > builder who will loop and roll their RV-10's when finished. I am sorry to hear that. Don't get me wrong, if properly done there shouldn't be any problem. The big words here are 'properly done'. And why stop at loops and rolls? Why not go for other akro maneuvers. After all, the loops and rolls were surviveable. That was sarcasm, for those that didn't catch it. I do akro in my Pitts. It's why I have it. I'll do cross countries in my RV-10. That's why I'm going to build it. Many years ago I did akro in a utility category airplane. Now I'm a little older and a little wiser. I'm also still here. I also know a Nevada builder that said the same thing (may be the same guy). His choice, and we live in a free society. I don't agree with him, but I'm not going make it an issue. I just hope they do not show up on my NTSB page. Linn do not archive ..... > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: linn walters > To: rv10-list@matronics.com > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 7:44 AM > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > > Richard Bibb wrote: > >> I don't know specifically on the RV-10 but I doubt the 2 degree >> difference will make any difference as full trim deflection will >> likely never be needed. > > Needed? Probably not, but it surely will tighten up the loop. > Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :-) > For those that are humourously challenged, that's a joke. But, > I'm sure somebody will loop it and roll it. :-( Trust me. ;-) > Linn > do not archive > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Lorenz Malmstrm >> To: rv10-list@matronics.com >> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:29 AM >> Subject: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work >> >> Hi Guys >> >> I have been trying to get the trim system to work - with >> limited success. My best effort is 33 down - instead of the >> 35 required (right side). The 'up'-travel is 27 - the >> required amount is not even mentioned in the plans. I don't >> get both sides aligned in the 0 position. I have checked the >> plans several times and can't find any 'builder induced' error. >> >> From those of you that have gone through this process I'd >> like to know if you had similar experiences and if so what >> the solution was. >> >> Does anybody know the deflections? For a potentially nose >> heavy plane I'd rather know the exact up position than the >> down position. >> >> Thanks in advance >> >> Lorenz Malmstrm >> >> 40280 Wings (& Trim System) >> >> http://www.malmstrom.ch/RV10.htm >> ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:09:45 AM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson I plan to, at the end of the fly-off, roll mine, and record some entry speed data to add to my operating limitations, to at least make it a documented item. I'm not too interested in looping it though, just a basic positive G roll. There's no reason why the -10 should not be able to do this nicely....if you've never seen Tex Johnsons Boeing 707 roll, you'll understand. Tim Russell Daves wrote: > I know of at least one Texas RV-10 builder and one Nevada RV-10 builder > who will loop and roll their RV-10's when finished. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* linn walters > *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com > *Sent:* Thursday, August 18, 2005 7:44 AM > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > > Richard Bibb wrote: > >> I don't know specifically on the RV-10 but I doubt the 2 degree >> difference will make any difference as full trim deflection will >> likely never be needed. > > Needed? Probably not, but it surely will tighten up the loop. > Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :-) > For those that are humourously challenged, that's a joke. But, I'm > sure somebody will loop it and roll it. :-( Trust me. ;-) > Linn > do not archive > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Lorenz Malmstrm >> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com >> *Sent:* Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:29 AM >> *Subject:* RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work >> >> Hi Guys >> >> I have been trying to get the trim system to work with >> limited success. My best effort is 33 down instead of the >> 35 required (right side). The up-travel is 27 - the >> required amount is not even mentioned in the plans. I dont >> get both sides aligned in the 0 position. I have checked the >> plans several times and cant find any builder induced error. >> >> From those of you that have gone through this process Id like >> to know if you had similar experiences and if so what the >> solution was. >> >> Does anybody know the deflections? For a potentially nose >> heavy plane Id rather know the exact up position than the >> down position. >> >> Thanks in advance >> >> Lorenz Malmstrm >> >> 40280 Wings (& Trim System) >> >> http://www.malmstrom.ch/RV10.htm >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:11:16 AM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: wing storage racks --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson Chris, Go here: http://www.myrv10.com/tips/wingtips.html I cobbled up someone elses design, and then if you look towards the bottom of that page, Larry Rosen #356 even took my info and improved on it and did a great write-up. It's cheap and easy. Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170 Current project: Doors/Windows Chris Hukill wrote: > I am preparing to accept delivery of my quickbuild wings and fuselage. > Does anyone have plans for a storage rack for the wings? I need them to > sit on the leading edges, on a rolling rack. Pictures and dimensions of > the wings would be helpful. Thanx in advance. > Chris Hukill (working on rudder) ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:20:35 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work From: "Scott Schmidt" Make sure you include one Utah builder too!!! Even though it is a four seater, it's still an RV. Scott Schmidt sschmidt@ussynthetic.com ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Russell Daves Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work I know of at least one Texas RV-10 builder and one Nevada RV-10 builder who will loop and roll their RV-10's when finished. ----- Original Message ----- From: linn walters To: rv10-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 7:44 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work Richard Bibb wrote: =09 =09 I don't know specifically on the RV-10 but I doubt the 2 degree difference will make any difference as full trim deflection will likely never be needed. Needed? Probably not, but it surely will tighten up the loop. Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :-) Linn do not archive =09 =09 ----- Original Message ----- From: Lorenz Malmstr=F6m To: rv10-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:29 AM Subject: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work Hi Guys I have been trying to get the trim system to work - with limited success. My best effort is 33=B0 down - instead of the 35=B0 required (right side). The 'up'-travel is 27=B0 - the required amount is not even mentioned in the plans. I don't get both sides aligned in the 0=B0 position. I have checked the plans several times and can't find any 'builder induced' error. From those of you that have gone through this process I'd like to know if you had similar experiences and if so what the solution was. Does anybody know the deflections? For a potentially nose heavy plane I'd rather know the exact up position than the down position. Thanks in advance Lorenz Malmstr=F6m 40280 Wings (& Trim System) http://www.malmstrom.ch/RV10.htm =09 =09 =09 =09 ________________________________ =09 ________________________________ ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 08:45:22 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work From: "John W. Cox" --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" Never seeing it doesn't help. It's the "Seeing is believing" that does. His son (Mr. Johnson that is) mentioned that the maneuver was practiced for days before SeaFair. Just done off the Straits of Juan DeFuca (out of prying eyes) so it looked spontaneous. Oh how those marketing guys can manipulate us little kids. John -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson I plan to, at the end of the fly-off, roll mine, and record some entry speed data to add to my operating limitations, to at least make it a documented item. I'm not too interested in looping it though, just a basic positive G roll. There's no reason why the -10 should not be able to do this nicely....if you've never seen Tex Johnsons Boeing 707 roll, you'll understand. Tim Russell Daves wrote: > I know of at least one Texas RV-10 builder and one Nevada RV-10 builder > who will loop and roll their RV-10's when finished. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* linn walters > *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com > *Sent:* Thursday, August 18, 2005 7:44 AM > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > > Richard Bibb wrote: > >> I don't know specifically on the RV-10 but I doubt the 2 degree >> difference will make any difference as full trim deflection will >> likely never be needed. > > Needed? Probably not, but it surely will tighten up the loop. > Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :-) > For those that are humourously challenged, that's a joke. But, I'm > sure somebody will loop it and roll it. :-( Trust me. ;-) > Linn > do not archive > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Lorenz Malmstrm >> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com >> *Sent:* Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:29 AM >> *Subject:* RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work >> >> Hi Guys >> >> I have been trying to get the trim system to work - with >> limited success. My best effort is 33 down - instead of the >> 35 required (right side). The 'up'-travel is 27 - the >> required amount is not even mentioned in the plans. I don't >> get both sides aligned in the 0 position. I have checked the >> plans several times and can't find any 'builder induced' error. >> >> From those of you that have gone through this process I'd like >> to know if you had similar experiences and if so what the >> solution was. >> >> Does anybody know the deflections? For a potentially nose >> heavy plane I'd rather know the exact up position than the >> down position. >> >> Thanks in advance >> >> Lorenz Malmstrm >> >> 40280 Wings (& Trim System) >> >> http://www.malmstrom.ch/RV10.htm >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 08:46:27 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: DVD Saw this $655 DVD/CD/MP3 that looks pretty nice: http://www.flightdisplay.com/products_av.html FAA/PMA approved and plays world-wide DVDs . . . TDT 40025 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 09:11:09 AM PST US From: Rick Subject: Re: akro ... was Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work 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 13 ____________________________________ Time: 09:11:12 AM PST US From: Warren Gretz Subject: Re: RV10-List: Falcon pitot tube --> RV10-List message posted by: Warren Gretz Hello: This is Warren's wife - I think I can answer this question for you guys (Warren is on a run to town to get more metal to make mounting brackets). Its because of the high wages he pays me. Ha! Seriously, the heated pitot tubes are VERY work intensive and it takes a lot of time to make just one, even with both of us sharing the work. There are two circuit boards that we have to populate and there are numerous steps to complete just one pitot, plus some of the components are fairly pricey. Because Warren wants each pitot to leave the shop working perfectly, also factor in checking it all out. The unheated pitot is just that - no extra circuit boards/wires/soldering, etc. and once the pitot is back from the molding company, we don't have to do hardly anything to it. Hope this helps explain the cost difference. Jan Mutchler (populating circuit boards in my retirement) ---- Dj Merrill wrote: > > --> RV10-List message posted by: Dj Merrill > > > > The price for heated is $425 and the price for unheated is $125. > > Just curious because I don't know about these things. > What makes the heating part of the pitot so expensive? > > -Dj > > > > > > > > > > > > > Warren Gretz Gretz Aero ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 09:27:00 AM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson I stuck a copy of the video in .wmv format out at: http://www.myrv10.com/files/videos/707JohnsonRoll.wmv if people want to see what we're talking about. Tim Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170 DO NOT ARCHIVE John W. Cox wrote: > --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" > > Never seeing it doesn't help. It's the "Seeing is believing" that does. > > His son (Mr. Johnson that is) mentioned that the maneuver was practiced for days before SeaFair. Just done off the Straits of Juan DeFuca (out of prying eyes) so it looked spontaneous. Oh how those marketing guys can manipulate us little kids. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 8:09 AM > To: rv10-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > > --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson > > > I plan to, at the end of the fly-off, roll mine, and record some > entry speed data to add to my operating limitations, to at least > make it a documented item. I'm not too interested in looping > it though, just a basic positive G roll. There's no reason > why the -10 should not be able to do this nicely....if you've > never seen Tex Johnsons Boeing 707 roll, you'll understand. > Tim > > > > Russell Daves wrote: > >>I know of at least one Texas RV-10 builder and one Nevada RV-10 builder >>who will loop and roll their RV-10's when finished. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* linn walters >> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com >> *Sent:* Thursday, August 18, 2005 7:44 AM >> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work >> >> Richard Bibb wrote: >> >> >>> I don't know specifically on the RV-10 but I doubt the 2 degree >>> difference will make any difference as full trim deflection will >>> likely never be needed. >> >> Needed? Probably not, but it surely will tighten up the loop. >> Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :-) >> For those that are humourously challenged, that's a joke. But, I'm >> sure somebody will loop it and roll it. :-( Trust me. ;-) >> Linn >> do not archive >> >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Lorenz Malmstrm >>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com >>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:29 AM >>> *Subject:* RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work >>> >>> Hi Guys >>> >>> I have been trying to get the trim system to work - with >>> limited success. My best effort is 33 down - instead of the >>> 35 required (right side). The 'up'-travel is 27 - the >>> required amount is not even mentioned in the plans. I don't >>> get both sides aligned in the 0 position. I have checked the >>> plans several times and can't find any 'builder induced' error. >>> >>> From those of you that have gone through this process I'd like >>> to know if you had similar experiences and if so what the >>> solution was. >>> >>> Does anybody know the deflections? For a potentially nose >>> heavy plane I'd rather know the exact up position than the >>> down position. >>> >>> Thanks in advance >>> >>> Lorenz Malmstrm >>> >>> 40280 Wings (& Trim System) >>> >>> http://www.malmstrom.ch/RV10.htm >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 09:31:25 AM PST US From: "Jim Combs" Subject: Re: RV10-List: wing storage racks --> RV10-List message posted by: "Jim Combs" Chris, The stands documented on Tim's web site are great. Additionally I added a piece of plywood on the 2x4 box at the end holding the inboard spar ends to make it more rigid. A diagonal would work well too if you don't have any spare plywood around. Jim Combs #40192 N312F ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Tim Olson --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson Chris, Go here: http://www.myrv10.com/tips/wingtips.html I cobbled up someone elses design, and then if you look towards the bottom of that page, Larry Rosen #356 even took my info and improved on it and did a great write-up. It's cheap and easy. Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170 Current project: Doors/Windows Chris Hukill wrote: > I am preparing to accept delivery of my quickbuild wings and fuselage. > Does anyone have plans for a storage rack for the wings? I need them to > sit on the leading edges, on a rolling rack. Pictures and dimensions of > the wings would be helpful. Thanx in advance. > Chris Hukill (working on rudder) ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 09:44:55 AM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > I plan to, at the end of the fly-off, roll mine, and record some > entry speed data to add to my operating limitations, to at least > make it a documented item. I'm not too interested in looping > it though, just a basic positive G roll. There's no reason > why the -10 should not be able to do this nicely....if you've > never seen Tex Johnsons Boeing 707 roll, you'll understand. Wow, you're so cool... Gee, may as well expand the airspeed envelope well past Vne while you're at it. And spin it a few times. Are you prepared for both possibilities, either getting too slow and spinning out of the top of the roll, or blasting past Vne as the nose drops and the roll rate is too slow to get you level again? And then there's overstressing it. That nose is gonna drop on you in the roll, and you'll be wanging the stick over to get the nose up and pulling the nose back through the last half of the roll to keep it from dropping too sharply. You'll be twisting the crap out of those long wings. You are talking about doing things the designer doesn't approve of. Not saying it can't be done safely, but seriously consider your own experience as a test pilot when you start rattling off names like Tex Johnson. And your point about adding it to your operating limitations? What are you talking about? Your operating limitations are issued by the FAA/DAR...it's not like you can just "add" something to it on your own. I assume maybe you're talking about the airframe logbook entry describing the aerobatic maneuvers that were performed during Phase I -- or did you even know that there is such a logbook entry required? Or are you talking about your operating handbook? Regardless, by adding any "suggestion" of the possibility of aerobatic maneuvers being "OK" in your airplane, then you open a serious can of worms if you ever sell that plane. You basically *enable* the buyer to do those maneuvers. Is that a liability you're willing to extend? REALITY CHECK!!! You are not building an aerobatic airplane. Give Van's a call and see what they have to say about your plan. do not archive )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 10:12:30 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work From: "John W. Cox" --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" Dan, just a question for the group. Are you saying your engine, cowl and ramair system are stock "Van approved" inclusions? I was impressed that you went off the reservation just a little before doing that flight to 20,000MSL back on April 3rd. I wasn't clear on the thought behind some of your maneuvers in the Lycoming IO-360-A1A. I thought some of your maneuvers would require an AEIO IO-360 to stay on the reservation. John -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > I plan to, at the end of the fly-off, roll mine, and record some > entry speed data to add to my operating limitations, to at least > make it a documented item. I'm not too interested in looping > it though, just a basic positive G roll. There's no reason > why the -10 should not be able to do this nicely....if you've > never seen Tex Johnsons Boeing 707 roll, you'll understand. Wow, you're so cool... Gee, may as well expand the airspeed envelope well past Vne while you're at it. And spin it a few times. Are you prepared for both possibilities, either getting too slow and spinning out of the top of the roll, or blasting past Vne as the nose drops and the roll rate is too slow to get you level again? And then there's overstressing it. That nose is gonna drop on you in the roll, and you'll be wanging the stick over to get the nose up and pulling the nose back through the last half of the roll to keep it from dropping too sharply. You'll be twisting the crap out of those long wings. You are talking about doing things the designer doesn't approve of. Not saying it can't be done safely, but seriously consider your own experience as a test pilot when you start rattling off names like Tex Johnson. And your point about adding it to your operating limitations? What are you talking about? Your operating limitations are issued by the FAA/DAR...it's not like you can just "add" something to it on your own. I assume maybe you're talking about the airframe logbook entry describing the aerobatic maneuvers that were performed during Phase I -- or did you even know that there is such a logbook entry required? Or are you talking about your operating handbook? Regardless, by adding any "suggestion" of the possibility of aerobatic maneuvers being "OK" in your airplane, then you open a serious can of worms if you ever sell that plane. You basically *enable* the buyer to do those maneuvers. Is that a liability you're willing to extend? REALITY CHECK!!! You are not building an aerobatic airplane. Give Van's a call and see what they have to say about your plan. do not archive )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 10:14:15 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" And while your at it ask Van's what they think about building an IFR platform. Bit of an over reaction there Dan. Let me guess, you feel strongly about this subject for some reason. Don't forget, we all do things the designer doesn't approve of. Like fly RV's in IFR which I believe you are also guilty of. These are experimental aircraft as I recall. Listing valid reasons for not doing a roll, as you did, is good, ranting about it doesn't get us anywhere. Michael Sausen -10 #352 wing ribs Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > I plan to, at the end of the fly-off, roll mine, and record some entry > speed data to add to my operating limitations, to at least make it a > documented item. I'm not too interested in looping it though, just a > basic positive G roll. There's no reason why the -10 should not be > able to do this nicely....if you've never seen Tex Johnsons Boeing 707 > roll, you'll understand. Wow, you're so cool... Gee, may as well expand the airspeed envelope well past Vne while you're at it. And spin it a few times. Are you prepared for both possibilities, either getting too slow and spinning out of the top of the roll, or blasting past Vne as the nose drops and the roll rate is too slow to get you level again? And then there's overstressing it. That nose is gonna drop on you in the roll, and you'll be wanging the stick over to get the nose up and pulling the nose back through the last half of the roll to keep it from dropping too sharply. You'll be twisting the crap out of those long wings. You are talking about doing things the designer doesn't approve of. Not saying it can't be done safely, but seriously consider your own experience as a test pilot when you start rattling off names like Tex Johnson. And your point about adding it to your operating limitations? What are you talking about? Your operating limitations are issued by the FAA/DAR...it's not like you can just "add" something to it on your own. I assume maybe you're talking about the airframe logbook entry describing the aerobatic maneuvers that were performed during Phase I -- or did you even know that there is such a logbook entry required? Or are you talking about your operating handbook? Regardless, by adding any "suggestion" of the possibility of aerobatic maneuvers being "OK" in your airplane, then you open a serious can of worms if you ever sell that plane. You basically *enable* the buyer to do those maneuvers. Is that a liability you're willing to extend? REALITY CHECK!!! You are not building an aerobatic airplane. Give Van's a call and see what they have to say about your plan. do not archive )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 10:32:19 AM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" John, I do only *positive* G aerobatics. I don't have inverted oil. Not sure what you're referring to. Regarding my engine, cowl, and ram air system...I'm using a Lycoming IO-360-A1B6 engine, which is among the list of powerplants Van's does approve for the RV-7. In fact it's the same engine in the RV-7 (now RV-7A) factory demonstrator. I'm using the identical Hartzell prop that they use on that plane. My intake air system is exactly what Van's specs out in the plans (identical to the factory demonstrator), with the exception of the ram air setup. I don't personally consider that modification to be on the same level of seriousness as somebody looping or rolling an RV-10!!! Maybe that's just me. do not archive )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "John W. Cox" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" > > Dan, just a question for the group. Are you saying your engine, cowl > and ramair system are stock "Van approved" inclusions? > > I was impressed that you went off the reservation just a little before > doing that flight to 20,000MSL back on April 3rd. I wasn't clear on the > thought behind some of your maneuvers in the Lycoming IO-360-A1A. I > thought some of your maneuvers would require an AEIO IO-360 to stay on > the reservation. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 9:44 AM > To: rv10-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > >> I plan to, at the end of the fly-off, roll mine, and record some >> entry speed data to add to my operating limitations, to at least >> make it a documented item. I'm not too interested in looping >> it though, just a basic positive G roll. There's no reason >> why the -10 should not be able to do this nicely....if you've >> never seen Tex Johnsons Boeing 707 roll, you'll understand. > > Wow, you're so cool... > > Gee, may as well expand the airspeed envelope well past Vne while you're > at > it. And spin it a few times. Are you prepared for both possibilities, > either getting too slow and spinning out of the top of the roll, or > blasting > past Vne as the nose drops and the roll rate is too slow to get you > level > again? > > And then there's overstressing it. That nose is gonna drop on you in > the > roll, and you'll be wanging the stick over to get the nose up and > pulling > the nose back through the last half of the roll to keep it from dropping > too > sharply. You'll be twisting the crap out of those long wings. > > You are talking about doing things the designer doesn't approve of. Not > > saying it can't be done safely, but seriously consider your own > experience > as a test pilot when you start rattling off names like Tex Johnson. > > And your point about adding it to your operating limitations? What are > you > talking about? Your operating limitations are issued by the > FAA/DAR...it's > not like you can just "add" something to it on your own. I assume maybe > > you're talking about the airframe logbook entry describing the aerobatic > > maneuvers that were performed during Phase I -- or did you even know > that > there is such a logbook entry required? Or are you talking about your > operating handbook? > > Regardless, by adding any "suggestion" of the possibility of aerobatic > maneuvers being "OK" in your airplane, then you open a serious can of > worms > if you ever sell that plane. You basically *enable* the buyer to do > those > maneuvers. Is that a liability you're willing to extend? > > REALITY CHECK!!! You are not building an aerobatic airplane. Give > Van's a > call and see what they have to say about your plan. > > do not archive > )_( Dan > RV-7 N714D > http://www.rvproject.com > > > ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 10:56:59 AM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to workMichael, Your point is well taken. But when a guy gets jumped on just for preaching safety, I think something is wrong. From http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/flyrvs.htm: "The RV-9/9A and RV-10 were not designed with aerobatic stress limits and are not intended to be used for aerobatic flight." That is my only point. Don't break your airframe doing something stupid. Everything else is flying within the limits and is certainly at your discretion. do not archive )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen) To: rv10-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 10:13 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work And while your at it ask Van's what they think about building an IFR platform. Bit of an over reaction there Dan. Let me guess, you feel strongly about this subject for some reason. Don't forget, we all do things the designer doesn't approve of. Like fly RV's in IFR which I believe you are also guilty of. These are experimental aircraft as I recall. Listing valid reasons for not doing a roll, as you did, is good, ranting about it doesn't get us anywhere. Michael Sausen -10 #352 wing ribs Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 11:44 AM To: rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > I plan to, at the end of the fly-off, roll mine, and record some entry > speed data to add to my operating limitations, to at least make it a > documented item. I'm not too interested in looping it though, just a > basic positive G roll. There's no reason why the -10 should not be > able to do this nicely....if you've never seen Tex Johnsons Boeing 707 > roll, you'll understand. Wow, you're so cool... Gee, may as well expand the airspeed envelope well past Vne while you're at it. And spin it a few times. Are you prepared for both possibilities, either getting too slow and spinning out of the top of the roll, or blasting past Vne as the nose drops and the roll rate is too slow to get you level again? And then there's overstressing it. That nose is gonna drop on you in the roll, and you'll be wanging the stick over to get the nose up and pulling the nose back through the last half of the roll to keep it from dropping too sharply. You'll be twisting the crap out of those long wings. You are talking about doing things the designer doesn't approve of. Not saying it can't be done safely, but seriously consider your own experience as a test pilot when you start rattling off names like Tex Johnson. And your point about adding it to your operating limitations? What are you talking about? Your operating limitations are issued by the FAA/DAR...it's not like you can just "add" something to it on your own. I assume maybe you're talking about the airframe logbook entry describing the aerobatic maneuvers that were performed during Phase I -- or did you even know that there is such a logbook entry required? Or are you talking about your operating handbook? Regardless, by adding any "suggestion" of the possibility of aerobatic maneuvers being "OK" in your airplane, then you open a serious can of worms if you ever sell that plane. You basically *enable* the buyer to do those maneuvers. Is that a liability you're willing to extend? REALITY CHECK!!! You are not building an aerobatic airplane. Give Van's a call and see what they have to say about your plan. do not archive )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com RV10-List Email Forum - more: bsp; ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 11:39:24 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" Dan, You got jumped on for how you went about it. We all value your opinion but adding things like "Wow, you're so cool..." and "REALITY CHECK!!! " make it sound a hell of a lot like your talking down to the community. I myself have no aerobatic experience so I didn't add to the post, nor will I say that Tim's proposition is reasonable because again I have no idea. But we all do take certain liberties during the build and flight test stage and all I can say is I hope everyone keeps it in their comfort zone and doesn't cause our insurance rates to go up. ;-) Michael do not archive ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work Michael, Your point is well taken. But when a guy gets jumped on just for preaching safety, I think something is wrong. From http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/flyrvs.htm: "The RV-9/9A and RV-10 were not designed with aerobatic stress limits and are not intended to be used for aerobatic flight." That is my only point. Don't break your airframe doing something stupid. Everything else is flying within the limits and is certainly at your discretion. do not archive )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen) To: rv10-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 10:13 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work And while your at it ask Van's what they think about building an IFR platform. Bit of an over reaction there Dan. Let me guess, you feel strongly about this subject for some reason. Don't forget, we all do things the designer doesn't approve of. Like fly RV's in IFR which I believe you are also guilty of. These are experimental aircraft as I recall. Listing valid reasons for not doing a roll, as you did, is good, ranting about it doesn't get us anywhere. =09 Michael Sausen -10 #352 wing ribs =09 Do not archive =09 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 11:44 AM To: rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work =09 --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" =09 > I plan to, at the end of the fly-off, roll mine, and record some entry > speed data to add to my operating limitations, to at least make it a > documented item. I'm not too interested in looping it though, just a > basic positive G roll. There's no reason why the -10 should not be > able to do this nicely....if you've never seen Tex Johnsons Boeing 707 > roll, you'll understand. =09 Wow, you're so cool... =09 Gee, may as well expand the airspeed envelope well past Vne while you're at it. And spin it a few times. Are you prepared for both possibilities, either getting too slow and spinning out of the top of the roll, or blasting past Vne as the nose drops and the roll rate is too slow to get you level again? =09 And then there's overstressing it. That nose is gonna drop on you in the roll, and you'll be wanging the stick over to get the nose up and pulling the nose back through the last half of the roll to keep it from dropping too sharply. You'll be twisting the crap out of those long wings. =09 You are talking about doing things the designer doesn't approve of. Not saying it can't be done safely, but seriously consider your own experience as a test pilot when you start rattling off names like Tex Johnson. =09 And your point about adding it to your operating limitations? What are you talking about? Your operating limitations are issued by the FAA/DAR...it's not like you can just "add" something to it on your own. I assume maybe you're talking about the airframe logbook entry describing the aerobatic maneuvers that were performed during Phase I -- or did you even know that there is such a logbook entry required? Or are you talking about your operating handbook? =09 Regardless, by adding any "suggestion" of the possibility of aerobatic maneuvers being "OK" in your airplane, then you open a serious can of worms if you ever sell that plane. You basically *enable* the buyer to do those maneuvers. Is that a liability you're willing to extend? =09 REALITY CHECK!!! You are not building an aerobatic airplane. Give Van's a call and see what they have to say about your plan. =09 do not archive )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com =09 =09 =09 =09 more: bsp; =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 12:16:24 PM PST US From: Rick Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work 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 23 ____________________________________ Time: 12:26:13 PM PST US From: "Brandon Yost" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: "Brandon Yost" I have to agree with Dan on this one. Safety is something that is completely okay to get all hot and bothered about. I guess you can do what you want in your plane, as long as you are completely okay with the fact that many bad decisions in a plane cannot be erased - just ask my friend who's been in critical care for over a week following a plane crash. I guess if you think the risk of doing aerobatics in the -10 is worth it, go for it. Personally, I can't think of ANY maneuver in a plane that gives me enough of a thrill to justify taking that kind of risk. Flying is a risk all on it's own. Why push it? I'm still holding out hope that the original post was a joke. do not archive Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 12:27:54 PM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson Hey guys, Don't worry, there's no offense taken, even with the maybe a little harsh tone. I realize the -10 wasn't built for aerobatics. And I did myself add the words "positive G roll". I didn't say snap roll, and even added that I wasn't interested in looping the -10 (although in the right plane it would be a blast). A plain vanilla roll, done *correctly* (acknowledging Dan's statements) should be even less stressful on the airframe than a steep turn. Done incorrectly, it could quickly lead to a disasterous amount of G's during a pull-out, or an un-planned spin recovery. So his points are very valid and should be well taken by all. Now that said, if you're spinning out of the top of the roll, and getting too slow, and everything else, you're really messing up the roll pretty bad. Dan, you're correct that I didn't mean operating limitations, I meant the airframe logbook entry. It was the requirement for such an entry that would be my motivation for doing it... at the end of my fly-off period. As for airframe stresses....I get paranoid when I see the skin oil-can and the wings flex all over the place is some heavier turbulence, so I'm certainly not interested in any of the higher-G maneuvers in my -10. I also offer no endorsement for doing any maneuver that conforms to the standard FAA terms of "aerobatic". Heck, I don't offer any endorsement to any non-aerobatic maneuvers. There are things that are just unknown. Right now, having not had hardly anything for -10 time, I can't tell you if slips with flaps is an issue, or extended slips on final (fuel un-porting), or anything. These are experimental planes, and in my mind, every one of us building them is a test-pilot.....because none of these planes are the same. What may work for one, may not work for another. So, Dan's post isn't all that bad...just a little maybe demeaning in tone as was pointed out. My guess is that it's an attempt to scare someone out of doing something stupid, which can be a good thing. Then again, there's always a good forum to discuss these things in relation to our RV-10's, and this being the RV-10 forum, I don't think it's such a bad place. Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170 DO NOT ARCHIVE RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote: > Dan, > > You got jumped on for how you went about it. We all value your > opinion but adding things like "Wow, you're so cool..." and "REALITY > CHECK!!! " make it sound a hell of a lot like your talking down to the > community. I myself have no aerobatic experience so I didn't add to the > post, nor will I say that Tim's proposition is reasonable because again > I have no idea. But we all do take certain liberties during the build > and flight test stage and all I can say is I hope everyone keeps it in > their comfort zone and doesn't cause our insurance rates to go up. ;-) > > Michael > do not archive > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Dan Checkoway > *Sent:* Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:56 PM > *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > > Michael, > > Your point is well taken. But when a guy gets jumped on just for > preaching safety, I think something is wrong. > > From http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/flyrvs.htm: > "The RV-9/9A and RV-10 were not designed with aerobatic stress limits > and are not intended to be used for aerobatic flight." > > That is my only point. Don't break your airframe doing something > stupid. Everything else is flying within the limits and is certainly at > your discretion. > > do not archive > )_( Dan > RV-7 N714D > http://www.rvproject.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* RV Builder (Michael Sausen) > *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com > *Sent:* Thursday, August 18, 2005 10:13 AM > *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > > And while your at it ask Van's what they think about building an > IFR platform. Bit of an over reaction there Dan. Let me guess, you > feel strongly about this subject for some reason. Don't forget, we > all do things the designer doesn't approve of. Like fly RV's in IFR > which I believe you are also guilty of. These are experimental > aircraft as I recall. Listing valid reasons for not doing a roll, > as you did, is good, ranting about it doesn't get us anywhere. > > Michael Sausen > -10 #352 wing ribs > > Do not archive > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 11:44 AM > To: rv10-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > > > I plan to, at the end of the fly-off, roll mine, and record some > entry > > speed data to add to my operating limitations, to at least make it a > > documented item. I'm not too interested in looping it though, just a > > basic positive G roll. There's no reason why the -10 should not be > > able to do this nicely....if you've never seen Tex Johnsons > Boeing 707 > > roll, you'll understand. > > Wow, you're so cool... > > Gee, may as well expand the airspeed envelope well past Vne while > you're at it. And spin it a few times. Are you prepared for both > possibilities, either getting too slow and spinning out of the top > of the roll, or blasting past Vne as the nose drops and the roll > rate is too slow to get you level again? > > And then there's overstressing it. That nose is gonna drop on you > in the roll, and you'll be wanging the stick over to get the nose up > and pulling the nose back through the last half of the roll to keep > it from dropping too sharply. You'll be twisting the crap out of > those long wings. > > You are talking about doing things the designer doesn't approve of. > Not saying it can't be done safely, but seriously consider your own > experience as a test pilot when you start rattling off names like > Tex Johnson. > > And your point about adding it to your operating limitations? What > are you talking about? Your operating limitations are issued by the > FAA/DAR...it's not like you can just "add" something to it on your > own. I assume maybe you're talking about the airframe logbook entry > describing the aerobatic maneuvers that were performed during Phase > I -- or did you even know that there is such a logbook entry > required? Or are you talking about your operating handbook? > > Regardless, by adding any "suggestion" of the possibility of > aerobatic maneuvers being "OK" in your airplane, then you open a > serious can of worms if you ever sell that plane. You basically > *enable* the buyer to do those maneuvers. Is that a liability > you're willing to extend? > > REALITY CHECK!!! You are not building an aerobatic airplane. Give > Van's a call and see what they have to say about your plan. > > do not archive > )_( Dan > RV-7 N714D > http://www.rvproject.com > > ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 12:52:45 PM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > A plain vanilla roll, done > *correctly* (acknowledging Dan's statements) should be > even less stressful on the airframe than a steep turn. Huh?!?! Now you've got me worried even more. In a steep turn, you are distributing load EVENLY between the two wings. In a roll, even at 1G or 0G, the wings are not evenly loaded. They are twisting. The stresses on the wings in an aileron or barrel roll are not to be compared with flying coordinated, with unaccelerated bank. Your airframe is simply not designed to withstand the twisting involved in aerobatic maneuvers. It is that simple. I'm picturing your "vanilla" roll, where you're rolling so gently and so slowly that you couldn't possibly overstress the airframe with these twisting moments. Rolling so slowly that you probably can't complete the roll before you're in a nose dive. I don't get it. Tim, I'm curious...in what planes have you done aerobatics? > So, Dan's post isn't all that bad...just a little maybe > demeaning in tone as was pointed out. My guess is that it's I'm trying not to be patronizing here, but what I've read so far is a clear sign of a lack of knowledge. do not archive )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 01:16:36 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." --> RV10-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." Not to be a smart A**, but on Vans Website it clearly states that recreational spins are not recommended, yet you tested for 1.5 revolution turn, just so you could see how it would react, and you did it with the smaller rudder, even though you know the spin recovery characteristics, as stated by the kit manufacturer, were less than favorable. And directly quoting you: "My goal at this point in flight testing was really just to fly a handful of aerobatic maneuvers. As you'll see in your operating limitations (issued by the FAA and/or DAR), if aerobatics are to be performed during the course of normal flying, you have to have previously demonstrated that specific maneuvers are safe and controllable...and you have demonstrated that during Phase I. There's a specific airframe logbook endorsement required for this. So as I said, I wanted to run through these maneuvers to satisfy that requirement, and to see how the thing behaved. I had already done tons of rolls at this point. When done properly, aileron rolls impose very little stress on the airframe, and in my opinion barely constitute an aerobatic maneuver. So according to you a roll is no big deal, but as soon as someone wants to do something out of the envelop you jump them? This does not seem like the normal you, what is going on? Concerned Dan Lloyd 40269 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 9:44 AM > To: rv10-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > >> I plan to, at the end of the fly-off, roll mine, and record some >> entry speed data to add to my operating limitations, to at least >> make it a documented item. I'm not too interested in looping >> it though, just a basic positive G roll. There's no reason >> why the -10 should not be able to do this nicely....if you've >> never seen Tex Johnsons Boeing 707 roll, you'll understand. > > Wow, you're so cool... > > Gee, may as well expand the airspeed envelope well past Vne while you're > at > it. And spin it a few times. Are you prepared for both possibilities, > either getting too slow and spinning out of the top of the roll, or > blasting > past Vne as the nose drops and the roll rate is too slow to get you > level > again? > > And then there's overstressing it. That nose is gonna drop on you in > the > roll, and you'll be wanging the stick over to get the nose up and > pulling > the nose back through the last half of the roll to keep it from dropping > too > sharply. You'll be twisting the crap out of those long wings. > > You are talking about doing things the designer doesn't approve of. Not > > saying it can't be done safely, but seriously consider your own > experience > as a test pilot when you start rattling off names like Tex Johnson. > > And your point about adding it to your operating limitations? What are > you > talking about? Your operating limitations are issued by the > FAA/DAR...it's > not like you can just "add" something to it on your own. I assume maybe > > you're talking about the airframe logbook entry describing the aerobatic > > maneuvers that were performed during Phase I -- or did you even know > that > there is such a logbook entry required? Or are you talking about your > operating handbook? > > Regardless, by adding any "suggestion" of the possibility of aerobatic > maneuvers being "OK" in your airplane, then you open a serious can of > worms > if you ever sell that plane. You basically *enable* the buyer to do > those > maneuvers. Is that a liability you're willing to extend? > > REALITY CHECK!!! You are not building an aerobatic airplane. Give > Van's a > call and see what they have to say about your plan. > > do not archive > )_( Dan > RV-7 N714D > http://www.rvproject.com > > > ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 01:41:28 PM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > This does not seem like the normal you, what is going on? To be perfectly honest... We had a first flight at my local airport this past weekend that scared me a little. The builder hadn't done everything to ensure that the plane was ready for first flight. There were some loose ends. I'm in conservative mode. do not archive )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 02:08:40 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." --> RV10-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." Understood, we just had a Cherokee crash local and kill 3 0f 4 on board, because the guy ran out of gas, after he had already landed, and found the FBO closed, so he tried for the next closest airport, knowing low fuel and it would be close. This kind of stuff just does not sit right with me. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > This does not seem like the normal you, what is going on? To be perfectly honest... We had a first flight at my local airport this past weekend that scared me a little. The builder hadn't done everything to ensure that the plane was ready for first flight. There were some loose ends. I'm in conservative mode. do not archive )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 02:20:12 PM PST US From: "Russell Daves" Subject: Re: RV10-List: wing storage racks You might want to consider two sawhorses instead of a wing storage rack. I screwed the spar end into the wood sawhorse at one end, stuck a 4' 2x4 into the wingtip ribs and screwed the 2x4 into the other sawhorse. With the two wings back to back I could work on the flap gap farings, run the wires for the lights, etc., install the autopilot servo and get the bottom skin ready to rivet all at a really good working height with no obstructions. When I got ready to install the stall warning and pitot tube I put the left wing down flap on a table top side down. Best regards, Russ Daves N710RV (Reserved) Fuselage on main gear ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Hukill To: rv10-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 9:45 AM Subject: RV10-List: wing storage racks I am preparing to accept delivery of my quickbuild wings and fuselage. Does anyone have plans for a storage rack for the wings? I need them to sit on the leading edges, on a rolling rack. Pictures and dimensions of the wings would be helpful. Thanx in advance. Chris Hukill (working on rudder) ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 02:36:06 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work From: "John W. Cox" --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" A close personal friend, Sean Tucker, supplements his well observed aerobatics with an Unusual Attitude Recovery Training school back home. If you are of the opinion that all attitudes entered with positive G are recovered by limitation to use of only positive G then I have clearly missed something in the training. The reason for the AEIO system that Christen Industries perfected for my Eagle was to insure oil flow in all attitudes - either intentional or unintentional. I have lots of friends that do unusual attitudes till the combustion stops from interrupted fuel flow or interrupted oil flow. Last August Shannon Knoeplein lost is life and beautiful plane with not understanding that to fly the aircraft, oil pressure was a key component. Doing Tim's rolls under proper training and supervision is an important step to knowing one's aircraft. It is Tim's choice - van is just the parts builder. The next best thing would be to do it in someoneelses cockpit. Fly the aircraft, Fly the aircraft... just stay away from the abusive gyroscopic prop forces while doing it. If safety is the premise, than I am all ears on the value of doing aerobatics without the AEIO and limited to only positive Gs. John -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" John, I do only *positive* G aerobatics. I don't have inverted oil. Not sure what you're referring to. Regarding my engine, cowl, and ram air system...I'm using a Lycoming IO-360-A1B6 engine, which is among the list of powerplants Van's does approve for the RV-7. In fact it's the same engine in the RV-7 (now RV-7A) factory demonstrator. I'm using the identical Hartzell prop that they use on that plane. My intake air system is exactly what Van's specs out in the plans (identical to the factory demonstrator), with the exception of the ram air setup. I don't personally consider that modification to be on the same level of seriousness as somebody looping or rolling an RV-10!!! Maybe that's just me. do not archive )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "John W. Cox" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" > > Dan, just a question for the group. Are you saying your engine, cowl > and ramair system are stock "Van approved" inclusions? > > I was impressed that you went off the reservation just a little before > doing that flight to 20,000MSL back on April 3rd. I wasn't clear on the > thought behind some of your maneuvers in the Lycoming IO-360-A1A. I > thought some of your maneuvers would require an AEIO IO-360 to stay on > the reservation. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 9:44 AM > To: rv10-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > >> I plan to, at the end of the fly-off, roll mine, and record some >> entry speed data to add to my operating limitations, to at least >> make it a documented item. I'm not too interested in looping >> it though, just a basic positive G roll. There's no reason >> why the -10 should not be able to do this nicely....if you've >> never seen Tex Johnsons Boeing 707 roll, you'll understand. > > Wow, you're so cool... > > Gee, may as well expand the airspeed envelope well past Vne while you're > at > it. And spin it a few times. Are you prepared for both possibilities, > either getting too slow and spinning out of the top of the roll, or > blasting > past Vne as the nose drops and the roll rate is too slow to get you > level > again? > > And then there's overstressing it. That nose is gonna drop on you in > the > roll, and you'll be wanging the stick over to get the nose up and > pulling > the nose back through the last half of the roll to keep it from dropping > too > sharply. You'll be twisting the crap out of those long wings. > > You are talking about doing things the designer doesn't approve of. Not > > saying it can't be done safely, but seriously consider your own > experience > as a test pilot when you start rattling off names like Tex Johnson. > > And your point about adding it to your operating limitations? What are > you > talking about? Your operating limitations are issued by the > FAA/DAR...it's > not like you can just "add" something to it on your own. I assume maybe > > you're talking about the airframe logbook entry describing the aerobatic > > maneuvers that were performed during Phase I -- or did you even know > that > there is such a logbook entry required? Or are you talking about your > operating handbook? > > Regardless, by adding any "suggestion" of the possibility of aerobatic > maneuvers being "OK" in your airplane, then you open a serious can of > worms > if you ever sell that plane. You basically *enable* the buyer to do > those > maneuvers. Is that a liability you're willing to extend? > > REALITY CHECK!!! You are not building an aerobatic airplane. Give > Van's a > call and see what they have to say about your plan. > > do not archive > )_( Dan > RV-7 N714D > http://www.rvproject.com > > > ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 02:38:47 PM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson What you say here doesn't jibe well. You talk about the twisting of the wings during a roll. Think about it harder... Obtain proper entry speed (note that this is not high speeds, but more like maneuvering speeds....perhaps 120 kts off the cuff) Nose up 20 degrees. Neutralize everything. Stick smoothly full Left 3 or 4 seconds later you're upright, slightly nose low Neutralize everything Ease back on the stick back to level flight Yeah, you're going full aileron, (or possibly not, depending on the roll rate.....that has to come from getting a feel for how touchy the -10 is) but using your logic below, we should now live in fear of tearing our wings off when cranking into a steep turn. During the initial rolling of the plane, there shouldn't be a big difference between going from a 45 degree right bank directly to a 45 degree left bank (which nobody would claim would be awful rough on a plane) or going all the way around. Perhaps your perspective comes from your own ride...the -7. When I went for my first and only -6 ride, my instructions were "YOU CAN RIP THE WINGS OFF THIS PLAN WITH THE STICK". Pretty scary. In fact, once in cruise in the -6, that stick was ABSOLUTELY way oversensitive and yes, you could probably rip the wings off that plane unless you were at lower airspeeds or only used smaller stick deflections. The -10 is sporty, but it's not nearly as awful sensitive as the -7, so maybe that's why you think this would cause a huge wing twisting motion. My current roll experience is limited to the Beech Sundowner, which in both Aerobatic and non-aerobatic models uses the same airframe (the aerobat has some spin recovery enhancements, but no additional strength). This airplane is very very close in performance, roll rate, feel, and size to the RV-10, with very similar empt weights, and very similar G rated design. If you can twist the wings off the -10 doing a roll, it's not a plane I'd want to own, and probably one that shouldn't be allowed to fly. Look at the Boeings that fly. They're fully capable of being rolled, although I don't know that anyone's been as crazy as Tex and done one since. The design loads on those wings are something more like +1.25/ -.5 or some tiny number like that. Now, think about what those "long" wings look like when you're on that long flight in turbulence. You can worry all you want, but I don't think you should use the argument of twisting the wings off the -10 as the basis of that argument. If the -10 can't handle a roll, then it shouldn't be rolled into and out of steep turns at anything but grand-lady speeds, and probably shouldn't be allowed to fly without some structural enhancements. Now, if you want to argue your point based on pilot skill, and wether or not the pilot can complete the maneuver without messing up and getting into an attitude that CAN break the airframe, then fine...that's a great argument to make and there's no disputing that it's valid. Yes...if you mess up an aerobatic maneuver in the -10, you probably can cause some irreversible damage that just may end your life. I'll reverse your question on you.... Dan, in what planes have you done aerobatics...or more specifically, aerobatics in the 0-2G range...since that's what my points in the discussion are relevant to? Tim Dan Checkoway wrote: > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > >> A plain vanilla roll, done >> *correctly* (acknowledging Dan's statements) should be >> even less stressful on the airframe than a steep turn. > > > Huh?!?! Now you've got me worried even more. > > In a steep turn, you are distributing load EVENLY between the two > wings. In a roll, even at 1G or 0G, the wings are not evenly loaded. > They are twisting. The stresses on the wings in an aileron or barrel > roll are not to be compared with flying coordinated, with unaccelerated > bank. Your airframe is simply not designed to withstand the twisting > involved in aerobatic maneuvers. It is that simple. > > I'm picturing your "vanilla" roll, where you're rolling so gently and so > slowly that you couldn't possibly overstress the airframe with these > twisting moments. Rolling so slowly that you probably can't complete > the roll before you're in a nose dive. > > I don't get it. > > Tim, I'm curious...in what planes have you done aerobatics? > >> So, Dan's post isn't all that bad...just a little maybe >> demeaning in tone as was pointed out. My guess is that it's > > > > I'm trying not to be patronizing here, but what I've read so far is a > clear sign of a lack of knowledge. > > do not archive > )_( Dan > RV-7 N714D > http://www.rvproject.com > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 02:55:20 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" --> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" Can we get back to RV-10s and leave the aerobatics to another forum? I'm sure Dan Reeves would love to have everyone start another thread on his forums . . .. TDT DO NOT ARCHIVE -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson What you say here doesn't jibe well. You talk about the twisting of the wings during a roll. Think about it harder... Obtain proper entry speed (note that this is not high speeds, but more like maneuvering speeds....perhaps 120 kts off the cuff) Nose up 20 degrees. Neutralize everything. Stick smoothly full Left 3 or 4 seconds later you're upright, slightly nose low Neutralize everything Ease back on the stick back to level flight Yeah, you're going full aileron, (or possibly not, depending on the roll rate.....that has to come from getting a feel for how touchy the -10 is) but using your logic below, we should now live in fear of tearing our wings off when cranking into a steep turn. During the initial rolling of the plane, there shouldn't be a big difference between going from a 45 degree right bank directly to a 45 degree left bank (which nobody would claim would be awful rough on a plane) or going all the way around. Perhaps your perspective comes from your own ride...the -7. When I went for my first and only -6 ride, my instructions were "YOU CAN RIP THE WINGS OFF THIS PLAN WITH THE STICK". Pretty scary. In fact, once in cruise in the -6, that stick was ABSOLUTELY way oversensitive and yes, you could probably rip the wings off that plane unless you were at lower airspeeds or only used smaller stick deflections. The -10 is sporty, but it's not nearly as awful sensitive as the -7, so maybe that's why you think this would cause a huge wing twisting motion. My current roll experience is limited to the Beech Sundowner, which in both Aerobatic and non-aerobatic models uses the same airframe (the aerobat has some spin recovery enhancements, but no additional strength). This airplane is very very close in performance, roll rate, feel, and size to the RV-10, with very similar empt weights, and very similar G rated design. If you can twist the wings off the -10 doing a roll, it's not a plane I'd want to own, and probably one that shouldn't be allowed to fly. Look at the Boeings that fly. They're fully capable of being rolled, although I don't know that anyone's been as crazy as Tex and done one since. The design loads on those wings are something more like +1.25/ -.5 or some tiny number like that. Now, think about what those "long" wings look like when you're on that long flight in turbulence. You can worry all you want, but I don't think you should use the argument of twisting the wings off the -10 as the basis of that argument. If the -10 can't handle a roll, then it shouldn't be rolled into and out of steep turns at anything but grand-lady speeds, and probably shouldn't be allowed to fly without some structural enhancements. Now, if you want to argue your point based on pilot skill, and wether or not the pilot can complete the maneuver without messing up and getting into an attitude that CAN break the airframe, then fine...that's a great argument to make and there's no disputing that it's valid. Yes...if you mess up an aerobatic maneuver in the -10, you probably can cause some irreversible damage that just may end your life. I'll reverse your question on you.... Dan, in what planes have you done aerobatics...or more specifically, aerobatics in the 0-2G range...since that's what my points in the discussion are relevant to? Tim Dan Checkoway wrote: > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > >> A plain vanilla roll, done >> *correctly* (acknowledging Dan's statements) should be >> even less stressful on the airframe than a steep turn. > > > Huh?!?! Now you've got me worried even more. > > In a steep turn, you are distributing load EVENLY between the two > wings. In a roll, even at 1G or 0G, the wings are not evenly loaded. > They are twisting. The stresses on the wings in an aileron or barrel > roll are not to be compared with flying coordinated, with unaccelerated > bank. Your airframe is simply not designed to withstand the twisting > involved in aerobatic maneuvers. It is that simple. > > I'm picturing your "vanilla" roll, where you're rolling so gently and so > slowly that you couldn't possibly overstress the airframe with these > twisting moments. Rolling so slowly that you probably can't complete > the roll before you're in a nose dive. > > I don't get it. > > Tim, I'm curious...in what planes have you done aerobatics? > >> So, Dan's post isn't all that bad...just a little maybe >> demeaning in tone as was pointed out. My guess is that it's > > > > I'm trying not to be patronizing here, but what I've read so far is a > clear sign of a lack of knowledge. > > do not archive > )_( Dan > RV-7 N714D > http://www.rvproject.com > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 03:03:59 PM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > Dan, in what planes have you done aerobatics...or more > specifically, aerobatics in the 0-2G range...since > that's what my points in the discussion are relevant to? Only Decathlons and RVs. Hey, I said my peace, and the forum can take it or leave it. Don't like my tone? Oh, well. Roll the heck out of your RV-10. Have fun. do not archive ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 03:09:21 PM PST US From: "Russell Daves" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: "Russell Daves" My rolls in an RV-6A were done just as Tim describes but with only about 5 degrees nose high, fast full aileron and about a 1/4 second 360 roll to full recovery. I say 1/4 second because it was so fast you couldn't hardly blink before coming back right side up. Most times in the -6A I came back up level and not nose low. As far as G loads I had a recording G meter in my RV-6A and the G meter on my rolls moved less than a 1/4 G even when I was first starting to do the rolls. At the end before I sold my -6A you couldn't even see that the G meter recording needle moved. I will admit that in first learning to do loops in the -6A I did pull almost 2 G's. Anyone can horse around an airplane, regardless of whether or not it is aerobatic. There are lots of aerobatic rated airplanes that have had their wings pulled off. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Olson" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson > > What you say here doesn't jibe well. You talk about the twisting > of the wings during a roll. Think about it harder... > > Obtain proper entry speed (note that this is not high speeds, but > more like maneuvering speeds....perhaps 120 kts off the cuff) > Nose up 20 degrees. > Neutralize everything. > Stick smoothly full Left > 3 or 4 seconds later you're upright, slightly nose low > Neutralize everything > Ease back on the stick back to level flight > > Yeah, you're going full aileron, (or possibly not, depending on the > roll rate.....that has to come from getting a feel for how touchy > the -10 is) but using your logic below, we should now live in fear of > tearing our wings off when cranking into a steep turn. During the > initial rolling of the plane, there shouldn't be a big difference > between going from a 45 degree right bank directly to a 45 degree > left bank (which nobody would claim would be awful rough on a > plane) or going all the way around. > > Perhaps your perspective comes from your own ride...the -7. > When I went for my first and only -6 ride, my instructions > were "YOU CAN RIP THE WINGS OFF THIS PLAN WITH THE STICK". > Pretty scary. In fact, once in cruise in the -6, that > stick was ABSOLUTELY way oversensitive and yes, you could > probably rip the wings off that plane unless you were at > lower airspeeds or only used smaller stick deflections. > > The -10 is sporty, but it's not nearly as awful sensitive > as the -7, so maybe that's why you think this would cause > a huge wing twisting motion. > > My current roll experience is limited to the Beech Sundowner, > which in both Aerobatic and non-aerobatic models uses the > same airframe (the aerobat has some spin recovery enhancements, > but no additional strength). This airplane is very very close > in performance, roll rate, feel, and size to the RV-10, with > very similar empt weights, and very similar G rated design. > If you can twist the wings off the -10 doing a roll, it's > not a plane I'd want to own, and probably one that shouldn't > be allowed to fly. > > Look at the Boeings that fly. They're fully capable of > being rolled, although I don't know that anyone's been > as crazy as Tex and done one since. The design loads > on those wings are something more like +1.25/ -.5 or > some tiny number like that. Now, think about what those > "long" wings look like when you're on that long flight in > turbulence. > > You can worry all you want, but I don't think you should > use the argument of twisting the wings off the -10 as the > basis of that argument. If the -10 can't handle a roll, > then it shouldn't be rolled into and out of steep turns > at anything but grand-lady speeds, and probably shouldn't > be allowed to fly without some structural enhancements. > > Now, if you want to argue your point based on pilot > skill, and wether or not the pilot can complete the > maneuver without messing up and getting into an > attitude that CAN break the airframe, then fine...that's > a great argument to make and there's no disputing > that it's valid. Yes...if you mess up an aerobatic > maneuver in the -10, you probably can cause some > irreversible damage that just may end your life. > > I'll reverse your question on you.... > Dan, in what planes have you done aerobatics...or more > specifically, aerobatics in the 0-2G range...since > that's what my points in the discussion are relevant to? > > Tim > > > Dan Checkoway wrote: >> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" >> >>> A plain vanilla roll, done >>> *correctly* (acknowledging Dan's statements) should be >>> even less stressful on the airframe than a steep turn. >> >> >> Huh?!?! Now you've got me worried even more. >> >> In a steep turn, you are distributing load EVENLY between the two wings. >> In a roll, even at 1G or 0G, the wings are not evenly loaded. They are >> twisting. The stresses on the wings in an aileron or barrel roll are not >> to be compared with flying coordinated, with unaccelerated bank. Your >> airframe is simply not designed to withstand the twisting involved in >> aerobatic maneuvers. It is that simple. >> >> I'm picturing your "vanilla" roll, where you're rolling so gently and so >> slowly that you couldn't possibly overstress the airframe with these >> twisting moments. Rolling so slowly that you probably can't complete the >> roll before you're in a nose dive. >> >> I don't get it. >> >> Tim, I'm curious...in what planes have you done aerobatics? >> >>> So, Dan's post isn't all that bad...just a little maybe >>> demeaning in tone as was pointed out. My guess is that it's >> >> >> >> I'm trying not to be patronizing here, but what I've read so far is a >> clear sign of a lack of knowledge. >> >> do not archive >> )_( Dan >> RV-7 N714D >> http://www.rvproject.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 03:15:16 PM PST US From: "Russell Daves" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Aerobatic Forum?? --> RV10-List message posted by: "Russell Daves" I didn't know that Dan Reeves had a web site. Doug Reeves on the other hand is a really great guy and his web site VAFWWW is a great web site to boot. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" > > > > Can we get back to RV-10s and leave the aerobatics to another forum? I'm > sure Dan Reeves would love to have everyone start another thread on his > forums . . . > > TDT > > DO NOT ARCHIVE > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tim Olson > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 5:38 PM > To: rv10-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > > > --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson > > What you say here doesn't jibe well. You talk about the twisting > of the wings during a roll. Think about it harder... > > Obtain proper entry speed (note that this is not high speeds, but > more like maneuvering speeds....perhaps 120 kts off the cuff) > Nose up 20 degrees. > Neutralize everything. > Stick smoothly full Left > 3 or 4 seconds later you're upright, slightly nose low > Neutralize everything > Ease back on the stick back to level flight > > Yeah, you're going full aileron, (or possibly not, depending on the > roll rate.....that has to come from getting a feel for how touchy > the -10 is) but using your logic below, we should now live in fear of > tearing our wings off when cranking into a steep turn. During the > initial rolling of the plane, there shouldn't be a big difference > between going from a 45 degree right bank directly to a 45 degree > left bank (which nobody would claim would be awful rough on a > plane) or going all the way around. > > Perhaps your perspective comes from your own ride...the -7. > When I went for my first and only -6 ride, my instructions > were "YOU CAN RIP THE WINGS OFF THIS PLAN WITH THE STICK". > Pretty scary. In fact, once in cruise in the -6, that > stick was ABSOLUTELY way oversensitive and yes, you could > probably rip the wings off that plane unless you were at > lower airspeeds or only used smaller stick deflections. > > The -10 is sporty, but it's not nearly as awful sensitive > as the -7, so maybe that's why you think this would cause > a huge wing twisting motion. > > My current roll experience is limited to the Beech Sundowner, > which in both Aerobatic and non-aerobatic models uses the > same airframe (the aerobat has some spin recovery enhancements, > but no additional strength). This airplane is very very close > in performance, roll rate, feel, and size to the RV-10, with > very similar empt weights, and very similar G rated design. > If you can twist the wings off the -10 doing a roll, it's > not a plane I'd want to own, and probably one that shouldn't > be allowed to fly. > > Look at the Boeings that fly. They're fully capable of > being rolled, although I don't know that anyone's been > as crazy as Tex and done one since. The design loads > on those wings are something more like +1.25/ -.5 or > some tiny number like that. Now, think about what those > "long" wings look like when you're on that long flight in > turbulence. > > You can worry all you want, but I don't think you should > use the argument of twisting the wings off the -10 as the > basis of that argument. If the -10 can't handle a roll, > then it shouldn't be rolled into and out of steep turns > at anything but grand-lady speeds, and probably shouldn't > be allowed to fly without some structural enhancements. > > Now, if you want to argue your point based on pilot > skill, and wether or not the pilot can complete the > maneuver without messing up and getting into an > attitude that CAN break the airframe, then fine...that's > a great argument to make and there's no disputing > that it's valid. Yes...if you mess up an aerobatic > maneuver in the -10, you probably can cause some > irreversible damage that just may end your life. > > I'll reverse your question on you.... > Dan, in what planes have you done aerobatics...or more > specifically, aerobatics in the 0-2G range...since > that's what my points in the discussion are relevant to? > > Tim > > > Dan Checkoway wrote: >> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" >> >>> A plain vanilla roll, done >>> *correctly* (acknowledging Dan's statements) should be >>> even less stressful on the airframe than a steep turn. >> >> >> Huh?!?! Now you've got me worried even more. >> >> In a steep turn, you are distributing load EVENLY between the two >> wings. In a roll, even at 1G or 0G, the wings are not evenly loaded. >> They are twisting. The stresses on the wings in an aileron or barrel >> roll are not to be compared with flying coordinated, with unaccelerated >> bank. Your airframe is simply not designed to withstand the twisting >> involved in aerobatic maneuvers. It is that simple. >> >> I'm picturing your "vanilla" roll, where you're rolling so gently and so >> slowly that you couldn't possibly overstress the airframe with these >> twisting moments. Rolling so slowly that you probably can't complete >> the roll before you're in a nose dive. >> >> I don't get it. >> >> Tim, I'm curious...in what planes have you done aerobatics? >> >>> So, Dan's post isn't all that bad...just a little maybe >>> demeaning in tone as was pointed out. My guess is that it's >> >> >> >> I'm trying not to be patronizing here, but what I've read so far is a >> clear sign of a lack of knowledge. >> >> do not archive >> )_( Dan >> RV-7 N714D >> http://www.rvproject.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 03:23:12 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Aerobatic Forum?? From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" --> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" It's his evil twin . . . do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Russell Daves Subject: Re: RV10-List: Aerobatic Forum?? --> RV10-List message posted by: "Russell Daves" I didn't know that Dan Reeves had a web site. Doug Reeves on the other hand is a really great guy and his web site VAFWWW is a great web site to boot. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" > > > > Can we get back to RV-10s and leave the aerobatics to another forum? I'm > sure Dan Reeves would love to have everyone start another thread on his > forums . . . > > TDT > > DO NOT ARCHIVE > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tim Olson > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 5:38 PM > To: rv10-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work > > > --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson > > What you say here doesn't jibe well. You talk about the twisting > of the wings during a roll. Think about it harder... > > Obtain proper entry speed (note that this is not high speeds, but > more like maneuvering speeds....perhaps 120 kts off the cuff) > Nose up 20 degrees. > Neutralize everything. > Stick smoothly full Left > 3 or 4 seconds later you're upright, slightly nose low > Neutralize everything > Ease back on the stick back to level flight > > Yeah, you're going full aileron, (or possibly not, depending on the > roll rate.....that has to come from getting a feel for how touchy > the -10 is) but using your logic below, we should now live in fear of > tearing our wings off when cranking into a steep turn. During the > initial rolling of the plane, there shouldn't be a big difference > between going from a 45 degree right bank directly to a 45 degree > left bank (which nobody would claim would be awful rough on a > plane) or going all the way around. > > Perhaps your perspective comes from your own ride...the -7. > When I went for my first and only -6 ride, my instructions > were "YOU CAN RIP THE WINGS OFF THIS PLAN WITH THE STICK". > Pretty scary. In fact, once in cruise in the -6, that > stick was ABSOLUTELY way oversensitive and yes, you could > probably rip the wings off that plane unless you were at > lower airspeeds or only used smaller stick deflections. > > The -10 is sporty, but it's not nearly as awful sensitive > as the -7, so maybe that's why you think this would cause > a huge wing twisting motion. > > My current roll experience is limited to the Beech Sundowner, > which in both Aerobatic and non-aerobatic models uses the > same airframe (the aerobat has some spin recovery enhancements, > but no additional strength). This airplane is very very close > in performance, roll rate, feel, and size to the RV-10, with > very similar empt weights, and very similar G rated design. > If you can twist the wings off the -10 doing a roll, it's > not a plane I'd want to own, and probably one that shouldn't > be allowed to fly. > > Look at the Boeings that fly. They're fully capable of > being rolled, although I don't know that anyone's been > as crazy as Tex and done one since. The design loads > on those wings are something more like +1.25/ -.5 or > some tiny number like that. Now, think about what those > "long" wings look like when you're on that long flight in > turbulence. > > You can worry all you want, but I don't think you should > use the argument of twisting the wings off the -10 as the > basis of that argument. If the -10 can't handle a roll, > then it shouldn't be rolled into and out of steep turns > at anything but grand-lady speeds, and probably shouldn't > be allowed to fly without some structural enhancements. > > Now, if you want to argue your point based on pilot > skill, and wether or not the pilot can complete the > maneuver without messing up and getting into an > attitude that CAN break the airframe, then fine...that's > a great argument to make and there's no disputing > that it's valid. Yes...if you mess up an aerobatic > maneuver in the -10, you probably can cause some > irreversible damage that just may end your life. > > I'll reverse your question on you.... > Dan, in what planes have you done aerobatics...or more > specifically, aerobatics in the 0-2G range...since > that's what my points in the discussion are relevant to? > > Tim > > > Dan Checkoway wrote: >> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" >> >>> A plain vanilla roll, done >>> *correctly* (acknowledging Dan's statements) should be >>> even less stressful on the airframe than a steep turn. >> >> >> Huh?!?! Now you've got me worried even more. >> >> In a steep turn, you are distributing load EVENLY between the two >> wings. In a roll, even at 1G or 0G, the wings are not evenly loaded. >> They are twisting. The stresses on the wings in an aileron or barrel >> roll are not to be compared with flying coordinated, with unaccelerated >> bank. Your airframe is simply not designed to withstand the twisting >> involved in aerobatic maneuvers. It is that simple. >> >> I'm picturing your "vanilla" roll, where you're rolling so gently and so >> slowly that you couldn't possibly overstress the airframe with these >> twisting moments. Rolling so slowly that you probably can't complete >> the roll before you're in a nose dive. >> >> I don't get it. >> >> Tim, I'm curious...in what planes have you done aerobatics? >> >>> So, Dan's post isn't all that bad...just a little maybe >>> demeaning in tone as was pointed out. My guess is that it's >> >> >> >> I'm trying not to be patronizing here, but what I've read so far is a >> clear sign of a lack of knowledge. >> >> do not archive >> )_( Dan >> RV-7 N714D >> http://www.rvproject.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 04:41:01 PM PST US From: "Marcus Cooper" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work Hmmm, 1 response out of 25 actually had something to do with this guy=92s question. Anybody else have a pertinent answer, I=92m also about to deal with the trim system? Thanks, Marcus P.S. The wings won=92t twist any more in an aileron roll than they would rolling into a steep turn using the same roll rate. (Couldn=92t help it, sorry) -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lorenz Malmstr=F6m Subject: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work Hi Guys I have been trying to get the trim system to work =96 with limited success. My best effort is 33=B0 down =96 instead of the 35=B0 required (right side). The =91up=92-travel is 27=B0 - the required amount is not even mentioned in the plans. I don=92t get both sides aligned in the 0=B0 position. I have checked the plans several times and can=92t find any =91builder induced=92 error. From those of you that have gone through this process I=92d like to know if you had similar experiences and if so what the solution was. Does anybody know the deflections? For a potentially nose heavy plane I=92d rather know the exact up position than the down position. Thanks in advance Lorenz Malmstr=F6m 40280 Wings (& Trim System) http://www.malmstrom.ch/RV10.htm ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 05:29:35 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work From: "Scott Schmidt" --> RV10-List message posted by: "Scott Schmidt" Do not archive. Well, I have to agree with Tim on this one. My training is Mechanical Engineering with an emphasis in aerodynamics, I have taken a 20 hour spin course in a Decathlon, I have quite a few hours in a Pitts, and I have flown 2 competitions in an S2-B. Rolling an airplane on a scale from 1-10 (let's say a 10 is +4 g's) is a 0 compared to straight and level flight (a 1). Now entering the roll should be a 10-20 degree pitch up which will be a 4 on my scale (you can probably do it under 2 g's). The exit should also be 1-4 if done correctly. Even with a little bit of nose down (10 degrees) recover should occur with less than 2.5 g's. As for the twisting I would agree that excess twisting would be bad but the worst condition would be straight and level flight on your left wing with a hard left turn, or of course a steep turn with a hard left turn. (and the opposite would be true on the right wing). Anytime the aileron loads the wing more than it currently is holding adds to it's stress. Now when I took my demo flight in the RV-10 Gus took the RV-10 from 60 deg. Left to 60 deg. right with full aileron deflection. I was very impressed with the roll rate for a 4 seater. That will be a much worse case than rolling the airplane at zero g's. The center of pressure during a roll with full deflection does shift but that has been taken into consideration already by the engineering staff at Van's. So, in summary, rolling the plane won't hurt, but pulling excess g's will and then there's the ground that really hurts. Now looping is still something that safely could be done below 4 g's. I have looped an L-39, Pitt's, Extra 300's, T-34's, Decatholon, RV-8, RV-6, RV-6A and it can be done below 4 g's but your airspeed has to be just right at the top. As for me, I will never loop the RV-10 but who knows, maybe someone will put on a great airshow someday with an RV-10. I know Bobby Younkin could have done a great show in the RV-10 without over stressing the skins or spars at all. Now will Van's endorse it? No way. It just wasn't designed for it. But can it do it? Sure, but he would never say it. He could never prove that the airframe wasn't overstressed. I just love aerobatics but I don't like it when people put fear in other people about aerobatics. It is absolutely safe with proper training and understanding of aerodynamic loading, airspeed considerations, and spin recovery training. Flying aerobatics is like being in a bunch of fluid that you can fly in any direction with the only difference between pointing straight and straight down is about 1600 lbs of thrust (for an RV-10). But that gives some awesome acceleration! (You gotta love gravity) Happy Flying. I really did enjoy these posts, they made me laugh after a long day. I just wish I could have been involved sooner. -Scott -----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: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson What you say here doesn't jibe well. You talk about the twisting of the wings during a roll. Think about it harder... Obtain proper entry speed (note that this is not high speeds, but more like maneuvering speeds....perhaps 120 kts off the cuff) Nose up 20 degrees. Neutralize everything. Stick smoothly full Left 3 or 4 seconds later you're upright, slightly nose low Neutralize everything Ease back on the stick back to level flight Yeah, you're going full aileron, (or possibly not, depending on the roll rate.....that has to come from getting a feel for how touchy the -10 is) but using your logic below, we should now live in fear of tearing our wings off when cranking into a steep turn. During the initial rolling of the plane, there shouldn't be a big difference between going from a 45 degree right bank directly to a 45 degree left bank (which nobody would claim would be awful rough on a plane) or going all the way around. Perhaps your perspective comes from your own ride...the -7. When I went for my first and only -6 ride, my instructions were "YOU CAN RIP THE WINGS OFF THIS PLAN WITH THE STICK". Pretty scary. In fact, once in cruise in the -6, that stick was ABSOLUTELY way oversensitive and yes, you could probably rip the wings off that plane unless you were at lower airspeeds or only used smaller stick deflections. The -10 is sporty, but it's not nearly as awful sensitive as the -7, so maybe that's why you think this would cause a huge wing twisting motion. My current roll experience is limited to the Beech Sundowner, which in both Aerobatic and non-aerobatic models uses the same airframe (the aerobat has some spin recovery enhancements, but no additional strength). This airplane is very very close in performance, roll rate, feel, and size to the RV-10, with very similar empt weights, and very similar G rated design. If you can twist the wings off the -10 doing a roll, it's not a plane I'd want to own, and probably one that shouldn't be allowed to fly. Look at the Boeings that fly. They're fully capable of being rolled, although I don't know that anyone's been as crazy as Tex and done one since. The design loads on those wings are something more like +1.25/ -.5 or some tiny number like that. Now, think about what those "long" wings look like when you're on that long flight in turbulence. You can worry all you want, but I don't think you should use the argument of twisting the wings off the -10 as the basis of that argument. If the -10 can't handle a roll, then it shouldn't be rolled into and out of steep turns at anything but grand-lady speeds, and probably shouldn't be allowed to fly without some structural enhancements. Now, if you want to argue your point based on pilot skill, and wether or not the pilot can complete the maneuver without messing up and getting into an attitude that CAN break the airframe, then fine...that's a great argument to make and there's no disputing that it's valid. Yes...if you mess up an aerobatic maneuver in the -10, you probably can cause some irreversible damage that just may end your life. I'll reverse your question on you.... Dan, in what planes have you done aerobatics...or more specifically, aerobatics in the 0-2G range...since that's what my points in the discussion are relevant to? Tim Dan Checkoway wrote: > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > >> A plain vanilla roll, done >> *correctly* (acknowledging Dan's statements) should be >> even less stressful on the airframe than a steep turn. > > > Huh?!?! Now you've got me worried even more. > > In a steep turn, you are distributing load EVENLY between the two > wings. In a roll, even at 1G or 0G, the wings are not evenly loaded. > They are twisting. The stresses on the wings in an aileron or barrel > roll are not to be compared with flying coordinated, with unaccelerated > bank. Your airframe is simply not designed to withstand the twisting > involved in aerobatic maneuvers. It is that simple. > > I'm picturing your "vanilla" roll, where you're rolling so gently and so > slowly that you couldn't possibly overstress the airframe with these > twisting moments. Rolling so slowly that you probably can't complete > the roll before you're in a nose dive. > > I don't get it. > > Tim, I'm curious...in what planes have you done aerobatics? > >> So, Dan's post isn't all that bad...just a little maybe >> demeaning in tone as was pointed out. My guess is that it's > > > > I'm trying not to be patronizing here, but what I've read so far is a > clear sign of a lack of knowledge. > > do not archive > )_( Dan > RV-7 N714D > http://www.rvproject.com > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 05:30:04 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work From: "Scott Schmidt" What was the trim question again? Scott ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work Hmmm, 1 response out of 25 actually had something to do with this guy's question. Anybody else have a pertinent answer, I'm also about to deal with the trim system? Thanks, Marcus P.S. The wings won't twist any more in an aileron roll than they would rolling into a steep turn using the same roll rate. (Couldn't help it, sorry) -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lorenz Malmstr=F6m Subject: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work Hi Guys I have been trying to get the trim system to work - with limited success. My best effort is 33=B0 down - instead of the 35=B0 required (right side). The 'up'-travel is 27=B0 - the required amount is not even mentioned in the plans. I don't get both sides aligned in the 0=B0 position. I have checked the plans several times and can't find any 'builder induced' error. From those of you that have gone through this process I'd like to know if you had similar experiences and if so what the solution was. Does anybody know the deflections? For a potentially nose heavy plane I'd rather know the exact up position than the down position. Thanks in advance Lorenz Malmstr=F6m 40280 Wings (& Trim System) http://www.malmstrom.ch/RV10.htm ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 06:16:24 PM PST US From: "bob.kaufmann" Subject: RE: RV10-List: wing storage racks Got my wings in them, come take a look. Bob K _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Hukill Subject: RV10-List: wing storage racks I am preparing to accept delivery of my quickbuild wings and fuselage. Does anyone have plans for a storage rack for the wings? I need them to sit on the leading edges, on a rolling rack. Pictures and dimensions of the wings would be helpful. Thanx in advance. Chris Hukill (working on rudder) ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 06:20:18 PM PST US From: "bob.kaufmann" Subject: RE: akro ... was Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: Rick I also agree that shiny side up is the way to fly, and that a 1 G environment is preferred. I believe that 1 G could be sustained in a variety of ways. Possible for a cross country to get 2 to 4 G's in a little turbulence. Don't think I would call that acro, but know I've put more than that on in rolling G's on a cross country in a V-Tail. Bob K _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Subject: Re: akro ... was Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work It's not that Nevada builder and the one who loves to tell everyone he's going to loop and roll gets my "over the glasses eyeball" everytime he mentions it. IMHO if ya want to do loops and rolls do them in an aircraft that has performance as part of it's fort'e. I'm sure the -10 is quite capable looking at the "g" ratings. I would hate to have something tragic happen to anyone but especially my friends, in an event that may have been preventable, had they only partaken in a X-country cruise, shiney side up. Only my 2 cents worth. Rick S. 40185 Wings ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 06:29:34 PM PST US From: linn walters Subject: -10 akro .... was Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: linn walters Tim, let me try. BTW, nobody knows (yet) just how much akro experience you have. I have a fair amount. Read on. Tim Olson wrote: > --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson > > What you say here doesn't jibe well. You talk about the twisting > of the wings during a roll. Think about it harder... > > Obtain proper entry speed (note that this is not high speeds, but > more like maneuvering speeds....perhaps 120 kts off the cuff) And how did you come up with that figure? > Nose up 20 degrees. Already I think you're in trouble. I don't think it's high enough .... but I don't have any experience in a -10 and it's airfoil. > Neutralize everything. > Stick smoothly full Left > 3 or 4 seconds later you're upright, slightly nose low Not knowing the roll rate with full aileron .... I think in 3 or 4 seconds you're inverted, and the nose is starting to fall through. All your lift vector is added to the gravity vector, giving you roughly twice the lift. This baby is headed home. > Neutralize everything Not yet. You're nose low, going from inverted to knife edge, and the airspeed is climbing rapidly. This is a clean airframe and that airspeed indicator is going to wrap up really quickly. Time to get off the throttle. Wish this thing rolled a little quicker. > Ease back on the stick back to level flight Well, our 'lightly loaded roll' has taken us up near Vne (direction unknown from initial entry) ..... just how high did we start this thing??? .... with the nose pointed down. Not the time to get agressive ..... maybe we should have pulled the prop back along with the throttle. ...... I've been there, done that (and survived without damaging the airplane ...... I think), and don't want anyone else to tread the nether regions of the flight envelope. I was young and stupid .... and where an awful lot of y'all are now. Yeah, sure .... ya never did anything stupid. Crock! I want everyone to live to fight another day! > Yeah, you're going full aileron, (or possibly not, depending on the > roll rate.....that has to come from getting a feel for how touchy > the -10 is) but using your logic below, we should now live in fear of > tearing our wings off when cranking into a steep turn. During the > initial rolling of the plane, there shouldn't be a big difference > between going from a 45 degree right bank directly to a 45 degree > left bank (which nobody would claim would be awful rough on a > plane) or going all the way around. I haven't seen any stress testing done with asymetrical ailerons. This airfoil just is poor for aerobatic maneuvers. > Perhaps your perspective comes from your own ride...the -7. > When I went for my first and only -6 ride, my instructions > were "YOU CAN RIP THE WINGS OFF THIS PLAN WITH THE STICK". Absolutely true. Many ham-fisted (and you may not be one of them) pilots have ripped the wings off of certified A/C built by experts. Our -10's don't fit either category. > Pretty scary. In fact, once in cruise in the -6, that > stick was ABSOLUTELY way oversensitive and yes, you could > probably rip the wings off that plane unless you were at > lower airspeeds or only used smaller stick deflections. > > The -10 is sporty, but it's not nearly as awful sensitive > as the -7, so maybe that's why you think this would cause > a huge wing twisting motion. I'm out of my experience league with the -7, and there's NO credible data on the -10, but it's apples and oranges. The -10 wing is longer with more chord. Uncomparable. > My current roll experience is limited to the Beech Sundowner, > which in both Aerobatic and non-aerobatic models uses the > same airframe (the aerobat has some spin recovery enhancements, > but no additional strength). This airplane is very very close > in performance, roll rate, feel, and size to the RV-10, with > very similar empt weights, and very similar G rated design. > If you can twist the wings off the -10 doing a roll, it's > not a plane I'd want to own, and probably one that shouldn't > be allowed to fly. > > Look at the Boeings that fly. They're fully capable of > being rolled, although I don't know that anyone's been > as crazy as Tex and done one since. The design loads > on those wings are something more like +1.25/ -.5 or > some tiny number like that. Now, think about what those > "long" wings look like when you're on that long flight in > turbulence. Again, you're comparing apples and oranges .... in both airframes and pilot capability. I'll be frank here, your attitude scares me. No, you probably don't care, but some of the others reading your post may be tempted to try some akro too, and be in way over their head. I've lost a lot of friends to aviation accidents, and yes, I feel like these faceless names are my friends too. I don't want to lose any more friends, especially to preventable accidents. > You can worry all you want, but I don't think you should > use the argument of twisting the wings off the -10 as the > basis of that argument. If the -10 can't handle a roll, > then it shouldn't be rolled into and out of steep turns > at anything but grand-lady speeds, and probably shouldn't > be allowed to fly without some structural enhancements. I doubt that the wings will come off in a coordinated, 1G roll. But then, I'm not a trained test pilot nor aeronautical engineer, so what do I know??? > Now, if you want to argue your point based on pilot > skill, and wether or not the pilot can complete the > maneuver without messing up and getting into an > attitude that CAN break the airframe, then fine...that's > a great argument to make and there's no disputing > that it's valid. Yes...if you mess up an aerobatic > maneuver in the -10, you probably can cause some > irreversible damage that just may end your life. Well, that's MY point. If you're the gambling type ..... and you've indicated that you are by your posts .... then let the dice roll. By yourself. Please don't take anyone with you. > I'll reverse your question on you.... > Dan, in what planes have you done aerobatics...or more > specifically, aerobatics in the 0-2G range...since > that's what my points in the discussion are relevant to? > > Tim Too bad you're too defensive to listen. I happen to agree with Dan, and his post. Whatever the reasons folks have NOT to do akro in the -10 ...... some valid, and some not ...... so what ...... it's only because they care. Be safe out there. I now relinquish the soapbox. Linn do not archive > > > Dan Checkoway wrote: > >> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" >> >>> A plain vanilla roll, done >>> *correctly* (acknowledging Dan's statements) should be >>> even less stressful on the airframe than a steep turn. >> >> >> >> Huh?!?! Now you've got me worried even more. >> >> In a steep turn, you are distributing load EVENLY between the two >> wings. In a roll, even at 1G or 0G, the wings are not evenly >> loaded. They are twisting. The stresses on the wings in an aileron >> or barrel roll are not to be compared with flying coordinated, with >> unaccelerated bank. Your airframe is simply not designed to >> withstand the twisting involved in aerobatic maneuvers. It is that >> simple. >> >> I'm picturing your "vanilla" roll, where you're rolling so gently and >> so slowly that you couldn't possibly overstress the airframe with >> these twisting moments. Rolling so slowly that you probably can't >> complete the roll before you're in a nose dive. >> >> I don't get it. >> >> Tim, I'm curious...in what planes have you done aerobatics? >> >>> So, Dan's post isn't all that bad...just a little maybe >>> demeaning in tone as was pointed out. My guess is that it's >> >> >> >> >> I'm trying not to be patronizing here, but what I've read so far is a >> clear sign of a lack of knowledge. >> >> do not archive >> )_( Dan >> RV-7 N714D >> http://www.rvproject.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 06:43:15 PM PST US From: linn walters Subject: Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: linn walters Scott, this part I totally agree with. However you forgot to include "in an aircraft designed for it." Well, IMHO anyway! I too love akro ..... which is why I've kept my Pitts all these years! Linn Scott Schmidt wrote: >--> RV10-List message posted by: "Scott Schmidt" > >Do not archive. > >I just love aerobatics but I don't like it when people put fear in other >people about aerobatics. It is absolutely safe with proper training and >understanding of aerodynamic loading, airspeed considerations, and spin >recovery training. > >-Scott > > -- ________________________________ Message 44 ____________________________________ Time: 07:07:08 PM PST US From: Kent Forsythe Subject: RV10-List: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with aerobatics) --> RV10-List message posted by: Kent Forsythe I just started the final assembly of my tailcone (ie. all parts drilled, dimpled and primed) and I have clecoed the assembly back together. When I look at where the side skins overlap the bottom skin, their seems to be a slight gap. I realized that I did not run my edge seamer down the side skins to put a slight bend on them. The problem is that with the skin already dimpled, the seamer will not run down the edge without running over the dimples (and probably flattening them out). One side looks ok but the other side has maybe a 1/64th gap that I am not sure will come down when I rivet. One thought I had was to un-cleco each side (one at a time) to release the pressure on that curve, and then rivet the line of rivets that joins the two skins. I think that will bring it down tight. After that, re-cleco and continue as normal. Am I asking for trouble rivetting those skins together without the sizes being fully clecoed? Anyone have any ideas. I am open to suggestions. Thanks in advance Kent Forsythe www.4sythe.com 40338 Tailcone ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 07:25:21 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with aerobatics) From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" The Avery tool will still work after you have dimpled. Michael Sausen -10 #352 Wing ribs Feelin loopy and rolling with laughter. HA! -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kent Forsythe Subject: RV10-List: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with aerobatics) --> RV10-List message posted by: Kent Forsythe --> I just started the final assembly of my tailcone (ie. all parts drilled, dimpled and primed) and I have clecoed the assembly back together. When I look at where the side skins overlap the bottom skin, their seems to be a slight gap. I realized that I did not run my edge seamer down the side skins to put a slight bend on them. The problem is that with the skin already dimpled, the seamer will not run down the edge without running over the dimples (and probably flattening them out). One side looks ok but the other side has maybe a 1/64th gap that I am not sure will come down when I rivet. One thought I had was to un-cleco each side (one at a time) to release the pressure on that curve, and then rivet the line of rivets that joins the two skins. I think that will bring it down tight. After that, re-cleco and continue as normal. Am I asking for trouble rivetting those skins together without the sizes being fully clecoed? Anyone have any ideas. I am open to suggestions. Thanks in advance Kent Forsythe www.4sythe.com 40338 Tailcone ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 07:34:04 PM PST US From: "bob.kaufmann" Subject: RE: -10 akro .... was Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: "bob.kaufmann" ROFL. Meaning "roll on floor laughing". "That's why good made parachutes." Russ, I plan on flying close formation also. You lead or me. Just be smooth over the top. Bob K ________________________________ Message 47 ____________________________________ Time: 07:42:51 PM PST US From: "Carl Franz" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work Lorenz, The trim tab in the down position will cause the elevator to 'fly' up, helping to hold the nose up, and since both trim tabs are used for this action, it should provide some 'muscle' to get that task done. You're right when you say that not much is required for nose down trim, so only one trim tab is used for that function. Carl -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lorenz Malmstr=F6m Subject: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work Hi Guys I have been trying to get the trim system to work =96 with limited success. My best effort is 33=B0 down =96 instead of the 35=B0 required (right side). The =91up=92-travel is 27=B0 - the required amount is not even mentioned in the plans. I don=92t get both sides aligned in the 0=B0 position. I have checked the plans several times and can=92t find any =91builder induced=92 error. From those of you that have gone through this process I=92d like to know if you had similar experiences and if so what the solution was. Does anybody know the deflections? For a potentially nose heavy plane I=92d rather know the exact up position than the down position. Thanks in advance Lorenz Malmstr=F6m 40280 Wings (& Trim System) http://www.malmstrom.ch/RV10.htm ________________________________ Message 48 ____________________________________ Time: 07:44:38 PM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with aerobatics) --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson Hi Kent, Like Mike said, the edge roller will work after dimpling. It may not be quite as pretty, but it's the bottom anyway. I'd pull the skins off and roll them just a tiny bit. It won't take much. Then rivet as normal. If you just leave it, it might not matter...but may as well do it unless you have a good reason not to. As for the rolling...sorry....just remember, Russ Daves started it. ;) (Gotcha Russ) Tim Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170 Current project: Doors/Windows DO NOT ARCHIVE Kent Forsythe wrote: > --> RV10-List message posted by: Kent Forsythe > > I just started the final assembly of my tailcone (ie. all parts drilled, dimpled and primed) and I have clecoed the assembly back together. When I look at where the side skins overlap the bottom skin, their seems to be a slight gap. I realized that I did not run my edge seamer down the side skins to put a slight bend on them. The problem is that with the skin already dimpled, the seamer will not run down the edge without running over the dimples (and probably flattening them out). One side looks ok but the other side has maybe a 1/64th gap that I am not sure will come down when I rivet. > > One thought I had was to un-cleco each side (one at a time) to release the pressure on that curve, and then rivet the line of rivets that joins the two skins. I think that will bring it down tight. After that, re-cleco and continue as normal. Am I asking for trouble rivetting those skins together without the sizes being fully clecoed? > > Anyone have any ideas. I am open to suggestions. > > Thanks in advance > > Kent Forsythe > www.4sythe.com > 40338 > Tailcone > > ________________________________ Message 49 ____________________________________ Time: 07:46:10 PM PST US From: "bob.kaufmann" Subject: RE: -10 akro .... was Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: "bob.kaufmann" FWIW. I have done loops and rolls in every aircraft I've flown except the 172, and the Funk. That includes Helios, Aero Commanders, Pipers, Etc, to even include 2 different types of hang gliders. It's not a bad deal to go upside down, but I have a lot of hours in academics and training in acro. Sure if you are on the first flight you can kill your self. If you have proper instruction in acro and a competent instructor, and time in the maneuvers, you can do it. I would recommend that inverted spins not be done, They really are not that much fun. Bob K ________________________________ Message 50 ____________________________________ Time: 07:46:54 PM PST US From: Rick aerobatics) Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with aerobatics) --> RV10-List message posted by: Rick Kent, If you have a hand seamer you can use it to put a slight bend into the sheet. I've done this in several areas and it works fine. Try it out on a piece of scrap to get the feel but you only need a little bend to make it happen. And please in the future when your refer to gap distances, use decimal instead of frational measurements. .015625 of an inch sounds so small compared to 1/64". Call Vans, and ask for Ken Scott...then tell him your concerns...lol...let us know what he says. Rick S. 40185 Wings level ________________________________ Message 51 ____________________________________ Time: 07:48:53 PM PST US From: Rick Subject: RE: -10 akro .... was Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: Rick Bob, Let Sid and I know your wishes in the "executor" area. Anyone have a business partner bent on flying upside down?....jeeeezzzz why do I worry!!!!!! Rick S. 40185 do not archive ________________________________ Message 52 ____________________________________ Time: 07:56:12 PM PST US From: Rick aerobatics) Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with aerobatics) --> RV10-List message posted by: Rick Co'mon guys..."roll" with the flow, it's all "rolls" like water off a ducks back. If you can't handle to fight "roll" with the punches.....sorry....I guess I'm getting loopy...opps...sorry I mean I must be getting tired....pitch is out, can't control attitude, she breaking up, she breaking up.....Steve Austin, a man barely alive.........PS-he only glided to earth and botched the stabilized approach concept...never rolled or looped it until impact. Rick S. do not archive ________________________________ Message 53 ____________________________________ Time: 07:57:53 PM PST US From: Rick Subject: RE: -10 akro .... was Re: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: Rick "Good" or "God" made parachutes??? ________________________________ Message 54 ____________________________________ Time: 08:02:27 PM PST US From: Rick Subject: RE: RV10-List: Getting Trim System to work --> RV10-List message posted by: Rick Where were you all afternoon!!!. That was a great post....thanks Scott. I've looped an F-4 and an F-16...but they don't really care which way is up....Well that's not true but I will leave it at that. Rick S. 40185 Wings do not archive ________________________________ Message 55 ____________________________________ Time: 08:06:27 PM PST US From: "Indran Chelvanayagam" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with aerobatics) --> RV10-List message posted by: "Indran Chelvanayagam" Kent - I made this mistake on the trailing edges of the elevators - ie dimpled before running the edge seamer along the edge. The way I got around it was to bend the skins (only slightly!) with 2 long blocks of wood. For the bottom piece, I rounded the corner slightly, and cut notches for the dimples. Then clamped the skin between this piece and another straight piece. Once immobilised, I could use fingers/small block of wood to create the slight bend. Turned out well, but much more work than using the edge seamer in the first place. Hope this helps Indran Chelvanayagam Bunbury, Western Australia RV-10 Construction Hangar visible on Google Earth : 33d22'27.00"S, 115d40'56.59"E -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kent Forsythe Subject: RV10-List: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with aerobatics) --> RV10-List message posted by: Kent Forsythe --> I just started the final assembly of my tailcone (ie. all parts drilled, dimpled and primed) and I have clecoed the assembly back together. When I look at where the side skins overlap the bottom skin, their seems to be a slight gap. I realized that I did not run my edge seamer down the side skins to put a slight bend on them. The problem is that with the skin already dimpled, the seamer will not run down the edge without running over the dimples (and probably flattening them out). One side looks ok but the other side has maybe a 1/64th gap that I am not sure will come down when I rivet. One thought I had was to un-cleco each side (one at a time) to release the pressure on that curve, and then rivet the line of rivets that joins the two skins. I think that will bring it down tight. After that, re-cleco and continue as normal. Am I asking for trouble rivetting those skins together without the sizes being fully clecoed? Anyone have any ideas. I am open to suggestions. Thanks in advance Kent Forsythe www.4sythe.com 40338 Tailcone ________________________________ Message 56 ____________________________________ Time: 09:00:42 PM PST US From: Deems Davis Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with aerobatics) Boy, keeping up with this site is Timely, I'm at exactly the same point as Kent and after reading his post, I went and checked to see how my skins matched, I actually drove a couple (3) rivets along the seam between the side skins and the bottom to see if it would snug down 'naturally' no joy on this end. I read Michael's post about being able to use the Avery tool w/ the dimples. I don't have the Avery tool, but the Cleveland ( don't know if there's a difference). My 1st reaction was ' you must be nuts there's no way to run the tool over the rivets' and then after thinking a bit, I tried running the tool between the dimples about 1 1\2" @ a time, it takes a little longer than the one pass prior to dimpling, but it seemed to work out fine, I'll let you know tomorrow when I drive some rivets. PS. I'm taking a tip from Mike How and Sean Steven's and back riveting as much as possible, I did the bottom skin and it worked just fine. I stopped by the Iron salvage/supply and found a piece of 1/4" plate about 12" x 16". They charged me $15 for it. took the belt sander to it to clean it up a bit, and I've now got a Jumbo back rivet plate!! Deems Davis #406 tailcone http://www.deemsrv10.com > > ________________________________ Message 57 ____________________________________ Time: 09:23:10 PM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tailcone question (sorry...nothing to do with aerobatics) --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson Hi again Kent, I just peeked at my tailcone. If you're referring to the seams that are on the bottom of the plane, where the skins wrap down and attach to the belly pan, I can't see that I even rolled mine. Maybe I did, and just didn't roll them much, but I don't remember doing it (it's been a long time though), and I can't see any bend. The seam is very nice and tight on mine though. That may ease your mind a bit if you've already started riveting. Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170 Current project: Doors/Windows DO NOT ARCHIVE Kent Forsythe wrote: > --> RV10-List message posted by: Kent Forsythe > > > I just started the final assembly of my tailcone (ie. all parts > drilled, dimpled and primed) and I have clecoed the assembly back > together. When I look at where the side skins overlap the bottom > skin, their seems to be a slight gap. I realized that I did not run > my edge seamer down the side skins to put a slight bend on them. The > problem is that with the skin already dimpled, the seamer will not > run down the edge without running over the dimples (and probably > flattening them out). One side looks ok but the other side has maybe > a 1/64th gap that I am not sure will come down when I rivet. > > One thought I had was to un-cleco each side (one at a time) to > release the pressure on that curve, and then rivet the line of rivets > that joins the two skins. I think that will bring it down tight. > After that, re-cleco and continue as normal. Am I asking for trouble > rivetting those skins together without the sizes being fully clecoed? > > > Anyone have any ideas. I am open to suggestions. > > Thanks in advance > > Kent Forsythe www.4sythe.com 40338 Tailcone > > > >