Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:10 AM - Oregon Aero Seats (rob kermanj)
2. 03:21 AM - Re: Coax (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
3. 05:56 AM - Re: Coax (Carl Froehlich)
4. 06:01 AM - Re: Oregon Aero Seats (Jesse Saint)
5. 06:18 AM - Re: Coax (Jesse Saint)
6. 08:13 AM - Re: Coax (William Curtis)
7. 08:16 AM - Re: FAB box service letter (Tim Lewis)
8. 09:21 AM - Re: Oregon Aero Seats (rob kermanj)
9. 11:58 AM - Cracks in flange (L Aune)
10. 04:33 PM - Re: Cracks in flange (John W. Cox)
11. 04:34 PM - Re: Cracks in flange (John Jessen)
12. 09:02 PM - Vapor return for mechanical fuel injection (Chris)
13. 09:38 PM - Re: Vapor return for mechanical fuel injection (Kelly McMullen)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Oregon Aero Seats |
--> RV10-List message posted by: rob kermanj <rv10es@earthlink.net>
I received my seats the other day from Oregon Aero and I am very
pleased with the quality. Perhaps I could have saved a little by
shopping around but they saved me time and headaches.
By sending Van's rear seat cushions to Oregon Aero, I saved a
little. My total cost including shipping was about $3250.
Rob
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
SPAM: If the email is for spam, please report to abuse@dnsExit.com
-By mail relay service at:
http://www.dnsExit.com/Direct.sv?cmd=mailRelay
Accounts will be suspended immediately if found spamming.
Actually, for TV it would be RG59 or RG6 @ 75ohm, not RG58 @ 50ohm. Use RG400
if you have any plans of making your bird IFR capable.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Finishing wings this morning :-)
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Dalton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Coax
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jeff Dalton" <jdalton77@comcast.net>
short answer .... the RG58 is the cheapest and least conductive of available Coax
(that's why RG-6 is recommended for long runs of cable or sattelite TV cable
instead of RG-58).
The higher quality cable will resist interference and have less signal degredation
than the RG58.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Coax
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Hasbrouck"
> --> <jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
>
> What is the advantage of RG400 over RG58 coax? Quite a cost difference.
> Is there a enough difference in quality that would justify the cost of
> RG400/U? Thanks
>
> John Hasbrouck
> #40264
> Wings
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich@cox.net>
RG-58 has slightly better RF characteristics as compared to RG-400 (less
attenuation per unit length), but RG-400 is far more mechanically durable
and in 1950-1960 vintage panels with a lot of stuff going on, the shielding
of RG-400 provided some interference avoidance benefits.
Bottom line - you would not be able to tell a practical difference in
application between the two - other than use where there the increase
durability of RG-400 has an advantage. A good example of this is in the
engine compartment. Klaus at LightSpeed changed to RG-400 coax awhile back
for the run from his electronic Ignition module to the engine mounted coils.
The advantage here is the better heat tolerance of RG-400 over RG-58 (RG-400
has a Teflon dielectric).
For the little bit needed for an RV-10, just get the RG-400 and not worry
about it.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (210 hrs), RV-10 on the wish list
Dogwood Airpark (VA42)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeff Dalton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Coax
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jeff Dalton" <jdalton77@comcast.net>
short answer .... the RG58 is the cheapest and least conductive of available
Coax (that's why RG-6 is recommended for long runs of cable or sattelite TV
cable instead of RG-58).
The higher quality cable will resist interference and have less signal
degredation than the RG58.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Coax
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
>
> What is the advantage of RG400 over RG58 coax? Quite a cost difference.
> Is there a enough difference in quality that would justify the cost of
> RG400/U? Thanks
>
> John Hasbrouck
> #40264
> Wings
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Oregon Aero Seats |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Was that $3,250 all for seats? Are they lined with gold? Actually, all
kidding aside, I would love to see some pictures. Are they leather? How
much was Van's foam for the rear seats?
Thanks.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of rob kermanj
Subject: RV10-List: Oregon Aero Seats
--> RV10-List message posted by: rob kermanj <rv10es@earthlink.net>
I received my seats the other day from Oregon Aero and I am very
pleased with the quality. Perhaps I could have saved a little by
shopping around but they saved me time and headaches.
By sending Van's rear seat cushions to Oregon Aero, I saved a
little. My total cost including shipping was about $3250.
Rob
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
We had an avionics expert put together our radio stack and he also made up
our antenna cables. He is used to wiring up 206's, Caravans and King Airs
for IFR flight. He made everything with RG-58 except the Transponder cable,
which he made with RG-400. The main thing he said was that we should keep
the transponder cable away from the other cables as much and as far as
possible, which is why we put our transponder antenna on the bottom of the
tunnel near the fuel pump and the other antennas are on the bottom aft of
the luggage compartment, so the wires run down the right side of the plane
or out into the wings for our wingtip antennas.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Froehlich
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Coax
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich@cox.net>
RG-58 has slightly better RF characteristics as compared to RG-400 (less
attenuation per unit length), but RG-400 is far more mechanically durable
and in 1950-1960 vintage panels with a lot of stuff going on, the shielding
of RG-400 provided some interference avoidance benefits.
Bottom line - you would not be able to tell a practical difference in
application between the two - other than use where there the increase
durability of RG-400 has an advantage. A good example of this is in the
engine compartment. Klaus at LightSpeed changed to RG-400 coax awhile back
for the run from his electronic Ignition module to the engine mounted coils.
The advantage here is the better heat tolerance of RG-400 over RG-58 (RG-400
has a Teflon dielectric).
For the little bit needed for an RV-10, just get the RG-400 and not worry
about it.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (210 hrs), RV-10 on the wish list
Dogwood Airpark (VA42)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeff Dalton
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Coax
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jeff Dalton" <jdalton77@comcast.net>
short answer .... the RG58 is the cheapest and least conductive of available
Coax (that's why RG-6 is recommended for long runs of cable or sattelite TV
cable instead of RG-58).
The higher quality cable will resist interference and have less signal
degredation than the RG58.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Coax
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
>
> What is the advantage of RG400 over RG58 coax? Quite a cost difference.
> Is there a enough difference in quality that would justify the cost of
> RG400/U? Thanks
>
> John Hasbrouck
> #40264
> Wings
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Conductivity has nothing to do with it, they both have the same copper center conductor.
What you are paying for in the RG-400 is slightly better shielding
and much better environmental characteristics. It's kind of like plenum rated
cable in the Ethernet world, electrically they are the same, but the plenum cable
is 3 times as expensive due to different materials required so that when
it burns, it does not release any toxic vapors. For this reason I plan to use
RG-400 anywhere in the cabin and RG-58 in the wings and elswhere.
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jeff Dalton" <jdalton77@comcast.net>
>
>short answer .... the RG58 is the cheapest and least conductive
>of available Coax (that's why RG-6 is recommended for long runs
>of cable or sattelite TV cable instead of RG-58).
>
>The higher quality cable will resist interference and have less
>signal degredation than the RG58.
William Curtis
40237 - wings
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAB box service letter |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Lewis <Tim_Lewis@msm.umr.edu>
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/Fab-sb_05.pdf
Every time I read this document (or the predecessor) I am struck by the
following paragraph:
(a) It is imperative to remember that, unless the individual aircraft
operating limitations permit, experimental aircraft are not permitted to
fly into known icing conditions.
(b) Flight into forecast icing conditions is limited by the provisions
of FAR 91.527.
(c) Flight into icing conditions can be extremely dangerous since the
rate of ice accumulation in the induction system and on the airframe are
unpredictable and may change in seconds.
Sentence (c) is true, and very much worth noting and heeding.
So far as I know, sentence (a) is false. No such FAR applicable to our
aircraft exists, and the normal operating limitations issued to RV's
include no such prohibition.
Sentence (b), with regard to RVs, is false. FAR 91.527 is part of FAR
91 Subpart F, which is applicable only to "Large and Turbine-Powered
Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional Ownership Program Aircraft." The
RV series of aircraft are not subject to FAR 91.527, or anything else
under FAR 91.5xx.
The intent of the paragraph in Van's service letter is good. The use of
two sentences that are false detracts, IMO, from the credibility and
impact of the letter.
(Yes, I brought this to Van's attention two years ago).
Tim
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oregon Aero Seats |
--> RV10-List message posted by: rob kermanj <rv10es@earthlink.net>
The amount was for the leather upholstery of all seats. It included
around $175-185 for Van's rear seat foams. The leather is dyed
through so that it will not show a different color once it is worn
through the skin. The seats are still in plastic cover and not good
for photograph. I am won't be removing the plastic for a while.
Will post photos as soon as I do.
Rob.
Organ Aero charged $3120 for their work including shipping
On Oct 29, 2005, at 9:00 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
>
> Was that $3,250 all for seats? Are they lined with gold?
> Actually, all
> kidding aside, I would love to see some pictures. Are they
> leather? How
> much was Van's foam for the rear seats?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jesse Saint
> I-TEC, Inc.
> jesse@itecusa.org
> www.itecusa.org
> W: 352-465-4545
> C: 352-427-0285
> F: 815-377-3694
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of rob kermanj
> Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 6:08 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Oregon Aero Seats
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: rob kermanj <rv10es@earthlink.net>
>
> I received my seats the other day from Oregon Aero and I am very
> pleased with the quality. Perhaps I could have saved a little by
> shopping around but they saved me time and headaches.
>
> By sending Van's rear seat cushions to Oregon Aero, I saved a
> little. My total cost including shipping was about $3250.
>
> Rob
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cracks in flange |
--> RV10-List message posted by: L Aune <lcaune@cablelan.net>
I found the same cracks in two lightening hole flanges. They
suggested that I stop drill but my experience has been that a stop
drilled flange might continue to crack past the stop drill. A drill
bit of 1/8 at least is required but even this is no guarentee. I had
them send me a new one and it was fine.
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cracks in flange |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Good Call. Now just post who (They) told you that Stop Drill was an
effective technique to build a quality/safe aircraft. That way smart
builders can avoid the miss information and promptly ask for a properly
manufactured part.
John - $00.02
Do Not Archive.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of L Aune
Subject: RV10-List: Cracks in flange
--> RV10-List message posted by: L Aune <lcaune@cablelan.net>
I found the same cracks in two lightening hole flanges. They
suggested that I stop drill but my experience has been that a stop
drilled flange might continue to crack past the stop drill. A drill
bit of 1/8 at least is required but even this is no guarentee. I had
them send me a new one and it was fine.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cracks in flange |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Any pictures?
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of L Aune
Subject: RV10-List: Cracks in flange
--> RV10-List message posted by: L Aune <lcaune@cablelan.net>
I found the same cracks in two lightening hole flanges. They suggested that
I stop drill but my experience has been that a stop drilled flange might
continue to crack past the stop drill. A drill bit of 1/8 at least is
required but even this is no guarentee. I had them send me a new one and
it was fine.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Vapor return for mechanical fuel injection |
I don't know much about this subject so my questions might even be off base.
How does a vapor return line need to be sized for a 540 with a carb or mechanical
fuel injection and where does the line enter into the tank. Is it just via
a bulkhead fitting like the vent bulkhead fitting? Does it enter on the bottom
or the top of the tank? I emailed ECI about their 540 system but it is not that
far along enought for them to comment on. Their 360 experimental engine will/does
have the option but I couldn't find practical details on the fuel system
just schematics.
TIA
Chris Lucas
#40072
fuel tanks ( I want to add a fitting now before I seal the tanks if I end up needing
it down the road)
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vapor return for mechanical fuel injection |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@aviating.com>
Depends what fuel injection system you go with. Carbs don't need return
line. Neither does the certified Bendix RSA system that Lycoming puts on
their injected engines. Only Continental and some of the
aftermarket/experimental fuel injection systems need a return line.
There are exceptions, like some of the bigger Cessna singles had return
line perhaps to deal with vapor lock issues.
Chris said:
> I don't know much about this subject so my questions might even be off
> base.
> How does a vapor return line need to be sized for a 540 with a carb or
> mechanical fuel injection and where does the line enter into the tank. Is
> it just via a bulkhead fitting like the vent bulkhead fitting? Does it
> enter on the bottom or the top of the tank? I emailed ECI about their 540
> system but it is not that far along enought for them to comment on. Their
> 360 experimental engine will/does have the option but I couldn't find
> practical details on the fuel system just schematics.
> TIA
> Chris Lucas
> #40072
> fuel tanks ( I want to add a fitting now before I seal the tanks if I end
> up needing it down the road)
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|