Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:57 AM - Re: Bonding Strap Location (Gary Specketer)
2. 12:46 PM - AOA wing skin location (Jay Rowe)
3. 01:25 PM - Re: AOA wing skin location (RobHickman@aol.com)
4. 01:36 PM - Re: AOA wing skin location (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
5. 03:33 PM - Engine questions - Feedback Please (Deems Davis)
6. 04:01 PM - Re: Engine questions - Feedback Please (Tim Olson)
7. 04:38 PM - Re: Engine questions - Feedback Please (Larry Rosen)
8. 04:55 PM - Re: Engine questions - Feedback Please (Tim Olson)
9. 05:13 PM - Re: Engine questions - Feedback Please (John Hasbrouck)
10. 05:25 PM - Midgets flying RV-10's (Tim Olson)
11. 05:33 PM - Re: Midgets flying RV-10's (James Hein)
12. 05:40 PM - Re: Midgets flying RV-10's (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
13. 06:15 PM - Re: Engine questions - Feedback Please (KellyM)
14. 07:03 PM - Re: Engine questions - Feedback Please (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
15. 07:34 PM - Re: Engine questions - Feedback Please (Richard Sipp)
16. 08:32 PM - Re: Engine questions - Feedback Please (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
17. 10:27 PM - Re: Engine questions - Feedback Please - Thanks (Deems Davis)
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: | Bonding Strap Location |
When using Proseal, how is it used so as not to interupt conductivity?
Gary
40274
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 1:53 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Bonding Strap Location
P static and Lightning Dissipation are two different electrical events, both
of which are centered around assisting the conductivity of a material
(Metal/Composite/Air). Saint Elmo's Fire is another phenomena. Composite
canopies (of the sheer size of an RV10) on VANS are a new occurrence.
Aluminum conductivity helps keep P static to a minimum and yet for guys who
fly in visible or even translucent clouds, the interference on the radio
band is unmistakable. When moving from Day/VFR/Recreation to Night/IFR/Time
important flight, P static needs to be addressed and remediated. Wicks help
in both arena. When you introduce a composite cover at the most remote
corner of a control surface you are helping defeat the natural discharge of
induced voltage (Wingtip, Horizontal, Vertical, Rudder).
IMHO, It is foolishness not to understand the advantage of bonding straps
that circumvent control surface bearing connections with a more conductive
path. When a lightning bolt hits, it always departs somewhere. The welding
effect on bearings or bushings is amazing. We just replaced 45 feet of
rivet line (hundreds of blown rivets) in the floor of one of our Air Carrier
birds that ventured into it. It was not flying fast, it was not flying high,
it was just flying in the damp Pacific North Wet. With or without static
wicks, I would hope every builder makes a conscious choice before dismissing
"Bonding Straps". It takes a Mega ohm meter to measure such infinitesimal
increments of voltage. Static can be in the millivolt range and still take
a bite out of a piece of expensive avionics.
We use ProSeal on each connection point of bonding straps to reduce
corrosion, moisture penetration and mechanical strains from movement.
John - KUAO
Do not Archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:18 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Bonding Strap Location
Michael, then why do C-182's have wicks? Certainly we fly faster. Is it
only when we are in the clouds that the wicks are needed? I don't know
about any of this, so may put them on to just keep the elephants away.
John Jessen
~328 (buildus interruptus)
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 9:41 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Bonding Strap Location
I am not planning on putting on static wicks but I do plan on trying to bond
the flight controls. How? Not sure yet. You have the right idea with the
tinned strap though. Several people are doing wicks and you can find a
rough guesstimate on Tim's site for a starting point. I don't necessarily
believe that we are in the speed ranges that need wicks yet, but to each his
own. The electrical potential difference between the flight controls and
the main airframe is more likely to cause problems (RF noise, corrosion,
etc) than actual static build up at the trailing edges IMHO.
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
Do Not Archive
<http://www.mykitlog.com/display_project.php?project_id=3D22> Recent RV-10
Build Activity
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tommy Norman
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 7:45 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Bonding Strap Location
For those of you that decided to install static wicks with bonding straps,
where are you attaching the bonding straps? I have looked at the production
spam cans around the airport but wanted to see what other -10 builders are
doing.
Also, what are you using for the strap and what size? Something like this
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/copperbraid.php with a crimped
ring terminal?
Thanks,
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | AOA wing skin location |
Group: I have both the Duckworks HID Wing Landing Light as well as an AOA. The
directions have both units in the outboard wing bay. There is plenty of room
but the AOA location directions would put the superior skin pressure unit behind
the landing light. I am concerned that the air pressures at that location
will be altered because of the slight change in wing contour secondary to the
light. Should I be concerned? Maybe move the two units a few more inches inboard?
I think I remember than Randy D.has the same setup but I can't find any
info. on his site. Thanks, Jay Rowe #40301.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AOA wing skin location |
If you move the ports you will need to calibrate the system.
You should not have a problem having the ports behind the lights. The
calibration data that we use is from a plane with the lights in front of the ports.
Anyone going to Sun-N-Fun needs to stop by Booth D-92 and see our new RV-10
Panel.....
Rob Hickman
Advanced Flight Systems
(503) 263-0037
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: | AOA wing skin location |
This has been discussed a couple of times before, please check the archives.
do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rowe
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:43 PM
Subject: RV10-List: AOA wing skin location
Group: I have both the Duckworks HID Wing Landing Light as well as an AOA. The
directions have both units in the outboard wing bay. There is plenty of room
but the AOA location directions would put the superior skin pressure unit behind
the landing light. I am concerned that the air pressures at that location
will be altered because of the slight change in wing contour secondary to the
light. Should I be concerned? Maybe move the two units a few more inches inboard?
I think I remember than Randy D.has the same setup but I can't find any
info. on his site. Thanks, Jay Rowe #40301.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Engine questions - Feedback Please |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
I had my 1st visit from my EAA Tech Councilor who is a long time A&P
IA, he made some compelling points about anything other than a factory
engine. His point is that engine parts have 'limits' set by the FAA, if
they are within limits the part can be reused. And at most engine
rebuilders facilities it goes into a 'bin/shelf/storage area' for future
use in an engine rebuild. Say for instance a crankshaft can be .003
undersize (just an example I have no idea what the allowable limits
really are)and still be OK, so the engine builder puts it in the 'good
parts' bin where it gets used to build your engine. But say shortly
after installing your 'new' engine the crank wears to .004, then you are
actually blissfully flying around with a crank that is not within
service limits. I'm assuming this is true, if not could someone please
set me straight. I was close to making up my mind about an
engine/supplier/source. But this has caused me to _seriously_ reconsider
anything other than a factory engine. My TC says that as an A&P he
receives correspondence from the FAA about engine shops that have been
found to use parts that are not within limits, his comment was 'even
some of the larger ones have had some instances'. I find all of this
unsetteling. Any feedback?
Additionally, In my Prior aircraft, I always flew with 'Factory Remans'
Are factory remans subject to the same 'limits' issue as in the above
example? Or are Factory Reman's to 'New' Limits?
Thanks for your enlightment
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse
http://deemsrv10.com/
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine questions - Feedback Please |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
This isn't as detailed as your question, but... As far as what I found
during my search, yes, cranks can either be to new limits, or various
undersized sizes. If it's got wear, they can grind them down one size
and get a matching bearing. When I shopped from America's Aircraft
Engines, I was able to get them to get me the specs on all the
IO-540 cranks they had and choose the one I wanted. Some were new
limits, some were undersized. I think as long as it's ground well,
undersized would be fine, but of course everyone wants new if they
can, right? When I got my engine from Aerosport, the crank was
to new limits, and I don't think Bart normally will use something
that's not to new limits. Also, everything in the top end is
new, and the case is used. By the time the rebuild is done, from
one of those good places, there's very little to worry about. Of
course, it's definitely a reason to buy only from a reputable rebuilder,
which is why I chose Aerosport. America's Aircraft Engines is also
known to be good, as are some others. In the end, I actually believe
that by getting a smooth running, well built engine, you don't have
much risk over new, and in fact with Lycomings crank issues recently,
I kind of trust their old cranks more...funny as that may seem. Of
course, I wouldn't argue with a brand new engine either. Everyone
seems to comment on how smooth my engine seems. I can't be outside
to hear it run, but inside it sounds fine to me. It sure runs well.
Anyway, just find yourself a good facility before you buy.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Deems Davis wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
> I had my 1st visit from my EAA Tech Councilor who is a long time A&P
> IA, he made some compelling points about anything other than a factory
> engine. His point is that engine parts have 'limits' set by the FAA, if
> they are within limits the part can be reused. And at most engine
> rebuilders facilities it goes into a 'bin/shelf/storage area' for future
> use in an engine rebuild. Say for instance a crankshaft can be .003
> undersize (just an example I have no idea what the allowable limits
> really are)and still be OK, so the engine builder puts it in the 'good
> parts' bin where it gets used to build your engine. But say shortly
> after installing your 'new' engine the crank wears to .004, then you are
> actually blissfully flying around with a crank that is not within
> service limits. I'm assuming this is true, if not could someone please
> set me straight. I was close to making up my mind about an
> engine/supplier/source. But this has caused me to _seriously_ reconsider
> anything other than a factory engine. My TC says that as an A&P he
> receives correspondence from the FAA about engine shops that have been
> found to use parts that are not within limits, his comment was 'even
> some of the larger ones have had some instances'. I find all of this
> unsetteling. Any feedback?
> Additionally, In my Prior aircraft, I always flew with 'Factory Remans'
> Are factory remans subject to the same 'limits' issue as in the above
> example? Or are Factory Reman's to 'New' Limits?
>
> Thanks for your enlightment
>
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Fuse
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Engine questions - Feedback Please |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Tim,
You say:, "I can't be outside to hear it run, but inside it sounds fine
to me."
I am sure there are many on this list that would be more than happy to
solve this "problem" for you. ;-)
Larry
do not archive
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: Engine questions - Feedback Please |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I think you'll just have to make a trip up here then so I can
take you for a ride, and after we're done you can hold the brakes
while I jump out and listen.
Tim
Larry Rosen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>
> Tim,
> You say:, "I can't be outside to hear it run, but inside it sounds fine
> to me."
> I am sure there are many on this list that would be more than happy to
> solve this "problem" for you. ;-)
>
> Larry
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine questions - Feedback Please |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Hasbrouck" <jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
Deems,
Overhauls come in a couple of different flavors. Most of us want an
overhaul to "new limits" and that makes sense. An overhaul to "service
limits" can, as you say, be on the ragged edge and go over it during use.
Factory overhauls can be to either new or service limits but most nowadays
are to new limits. Factory "remans" are a zero timed engine with a new log
book. Only the factory can do a "reman". Any others ( than remans )
continue the time on the engine logs, ie: TT3500 with TSMOH1500. With
competition in the after market, new cylinder assemblys have gotten pretty
reasonable and it's hard to justify reworking old jugs. Cams are the same
way. So, in reality, when you are buying a used engine (core) what you want
is a good case and crank since you'll probably replace the rest with new
anyway. Lots of 540's out there with prop strikes. Lycoming requires a
teardown with ANY prop strike no matter how severe. The crank in one of
these can be a crapshoot. Besides the prop flange being bent, you risk a
crack in the crank that would render it useless. Buying new from Lycoming
COULD be a good bet if they don't recall anything else!
John Hasbrouck
#40264
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: | Midgets flying RV-10's |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Learned something new today. Apparently whereas my wife USED to be
happy just being a co-pilot, she I guess likes our RV-10 enough
that she suddenly doesn't want to settle for just being a non-flying
co-pilot anymore. I mounted my rudder pedals in the forward position.
I'm almost 6'2". She's more the height of an ooompa loompa, but
not so round...at 5'2". Unfortunately, with the seat full forward,
she still can't make the rudder pedals move much. So now it's either
booster seat time, or the ol' wooden blocks on the shoes. One thing
I'm not doing is moving those pedals back...at least not yet.
Something to think about before you mount your pedals.
--
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
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: | Re: Midgets flying RV-10's |
--> RV10-List message posted by: James Hein <n8vim@arrl.net>
Tim,
Platform shoes are back in style now.....
do not archive
-Jim (no work on the -10 today, helped friend put wings on a -8)
Tim Olson wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> Learned something new today. Apparently whereas my wife USED to be
> happy just being a co-pilot, she I guess likes our RV-10 enough
> that she suddenly doesn't want to settle for just being a non-flying
> co-pilot anymore. I mounted my rudder pedals in the forward position.
> I'm almost 6'2". She's more the height of an ooompa loompa, but
> not so round...at 5'2". Unfortunately, with the seat full forward,
> she still can't make the rudder pedals move much. So now it's either
> booster seat time, or the ol' wooden blocks on the shoes. One thing
> I'm not doing is moving those pedals back...at least not yet.
>
> Something to think about before you mount your pedals.
>
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: | Midgets flying RV-10's |
Bet you can get her some nice platform shoes from one of those retro 70's shops.
Hehe
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: Saturday, March 11, 2006 7:25 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Midgets flying RV-10's
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Learned something new today. Apparently whereas my wife USED to be
happy just being a co-pilot, she I guess likes our RV-10 enough that she suddenly
doesn't want to settle for just being a non-flying co-pilot anymore. I mounted
my rudder pedals in the forward position.
I'm almost 6'2". She's more the height of an ooompa loompa, but not so round...at
5'2". Unfortunately, with the seat full forward, she still can't make the
rudder pedals move much. So now it's either booster seat time, or the ol' wooden
blocks on the shoes. One thing I'm not doing is moving those pedals back...at
least not yet.
Something to think about before you mount your pedals.
--
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
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: Engine questions - Feedback Please |
--> RV10-List message posted by: KellyM <kellym@aviating.com>
Let me clear up a few things for you Deems. My perspective...I have
spent the last 350 hours flying behind an IO-360-A1A that I personally
overhauled, in my Mooney. Yes, I have an A&P certificate, that was
issued after 9/11. I don't know where your tech counselor got his
information, but it is not all correct. Only the factory actually puts
used parts on the shelf for future use, unless you are talking a big
repair station operation. The average shop and A&P must keep all the
reusable parts of an engine together, along with the log books, to be
able to track the time. Only the factory can do what the FAA calls a
rebuild, resulting in a zero time engine. That is by regulation. That is
what the marketing folks call a reman, which is a term not recognized by
the FAA.
Everyone else produces overhauled engines, and Lycoming does as well.
Those must have the parts kept together and the total time follows the
major pieces. That said, everything on the engine but the data plate can
be changed and still have the same engine with the same TT. Lycoming
puts out SB240 which specifies the parts that must be changed at
overhaul time if the engine is to be used for hire. It isn't mandatory
for Part 91, nor experimental. While an engine can be put together only
meeting service limits, it typically is only done to fix a broken plane,
such as a prop strike.
Anyone in their right mind, including virtually all overhaul shops will
build to new specifications and limits, because it isn't that hard, nor
does it change the overall cost much. The name shops, like BPA, Lycon,
Mattituck, etc. do more than just new limits, they use their experience
to make the engine better balanced, both in rotating mass and in flow.
The smoother the engine runs, the less likely they are to see a warranty
issue.
The problem with factory new, overhauled and reman, right now, is that
Lycoming outsources manufacture of every single part in the engine. That
is right, 15 years ago, more or less, they survived by selling every
single piece of manufacturing equipment they owned. They only do QC and
assembly on the engines. While you will get more new parts in a reman,
you are not guaranteed new production dimensions. For example, they can
use a crank turned .003 undersize. You will not get any history of any
of the parts and will have no idea whether the case or crank have 2000
hours or 10000 hours on them. Their overhauled engines, while cheaper,
also have shorter warranty, and while normally built to new limits, you
are only guaranteed service limits, if you read the fine print. You also
have no control on the TT on the engine you get. You might exchange a
2000TT core for a 6000TT 0SMOH overhaul.
I think you will fine most of the well respected engine overhaul shops
will give you better warranty, more control over your choices, and a
better running engine than the factory. JMHO.
KM
KCHD, A&P
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Deems Davis wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
> I had my 1st visit from my EAA Tech Councilor who is a long time A&P
> IA, he made some compelling points about anything other than a factory
> engine. His point is that engine parts have 'limits' set by the FAA, if
> they are within limits the part can be reused. And at most engine
> rebuilders facilities it goes into a 'bin/shelf/storage area' for future
> use in an engine rebuild. Say for instance a crankshaft can be .003
> undersize (just an example I have no idea what the allowable limits
> really are)and still be OK, so the engine builder puts it in the 'good
> parts' bin where it gets used to build your engine. But say shortly
> after installing your 'new' engine the crank wears to .004, then you are
> actually blissfully flying around with a crank that is not within
> service limits. I'm assuming this is true, if not could someone please
> set me straight. I was close to making up my mind about an
> engine/supplier/source. But this has caused me to _seriously_ reconsider
> anything other than a factory engine. My TC says that as an A&P he
> receives correspondence from the FAA about engine shops that have been
> found to use parts that are not within limits, his comment was 'even
> some of the larger ones have had some instances'. I find all of this
> unsetteling. Any feedback?
> Additionally, In my Prior aircraft, I always flew with 'Factory Remans'
> Are factory remans subject to the same 'limits' issue as in the above
> example? Or are Factory Reman's to 'New' Limits?
>
> Thanks for your enlightment
>
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Fuse
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Engine questions - Feedback Please |
Couple of things I would like to add to this. At least one of the respected shops
is apparently not very good at overhauling engines. I know of at least one
instance of a popular northern shop sending a unairworthy overhauled engine
out but they built perfectly fine "new" kit engines, which is what that person
ended up with. If the shop doesn't do many overhauls, you might want to find
one that does.
There has been some discussion on how Mattituck is less expensive than other
well known shops such as BPE and Aerosport. Make sure you are comparing apples
to apples. For instance, I believe that if you add what BPE does standard to
the Mattituck price, it is more than a BPE. I'm sure Allen will chime in on
this, but you get the idea.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of KellyM
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Engine questions - Feedback Please
--> RV10-List message posted by: KellyM <kellym@aviating.com>
Let me clear up a few things for you Deems. My perspective...I have spent the last
350 hours flying behind an IO-360-A1A that I personally overhauled, in my
Mooney. Yes, I have an A&P certificate, that was issued after 9/11. I don't know
where your tech counselor got his information, but it is not all correct.
Only the factory actually puts used parts on the shelf for future use, unless
you are talking a big repair station operation. The average shop and A&P must
keep all the reusable parts of an engine together, along with the log books, to
be able to track the time. Only the factory can do what the FAA calls a rebuild,
resulting in a zero time engine. That is by regulation. That is what the
marketing folks call a reman, which is a term not recognized by the FAA.
Everyone else produces overhauled engines, and Lycoming does as well.
Those must have the parts kept together and the total time follows the major pieces.
That said, everything on the engine but the data plate can be changed and
still have the same engine with the same TT. Lycoming puts out SB240 which specifies
the parts that must be changed at overhaul time if the engine is to be
used for hire. It isn't mandatory for Part 91, nor experimental. While an engine
can be put together only meeting service limits, it typically is only done
to fix a broken plane, such as a prop strike.
Anyone in their right mind, including virtually all overhaul shops will build to
new specifications and limits, because it isn't that hard, nor does it change
the overall cost much. The name shops, like BPA, Lycon, Mattituck, etc. do more
than just new limits, they use their experience to make the engine better
balanced, both in rotating mass and in flow.
The smoother the engine runs, the less likely they are to see a warranty issue.
The problem with factory new, overhauled and reman, right now, is that Lycoming
outsources manufacture of every single part in the engine. That is right, 15
years ago, more or less, they survived by selling every single piece of manufacturing
equipment they owned. They only do QC and assembly on the engines. While
you will get more new parts in a reman, you are not guaranteed new production
dimensions. For example, they can use a crank turned .003 undersize. You will
not get any history of any of the parts and will have no idea whether the case
or crank have 2000 hours or 10000 hours on them. Their overhauled engines,
while cheaper, also have shorter warranty, and while normally built to new limits,
you are only guaranteed service limits, if you read the fine print. You
also have no control on the TT on the engine you get. You might exchange a 2000TT
core for a 6000TT 0SMOH overhaul.
I think you will fine most of the well respected engine overhaul shops will give
you better warranty, more control over your choices, and a better running engine
than the factory. JMHO.
KM
KCHD, A&P
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Deems Davis wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
> I had my 1st visit from my EAA Tech Councilor who is a long time A&P
> IA, he made some compelling points about anything other than a factory
> engine. His point is that engine parts have 'limits' set by the FAA,
> if they are within limits the part can be reused. And at most engine
> rebuilders facilities it goes into a 'bin/shelf/storage area' for
> future use in an engine rebuild. Say for instance a crankshaft can be
> .003 undersize (just an example I have no idea what the allowable
> limits really are)and still be OK, so the engine builder puts it in
> the 'good parts' bin where it gets used to build your engine. But say
> shortly after installing your 'new' engine the crank wears to .004,
> then you are actually blissfully flying around with a crank that is
> not within service limits. I'm assuming this is true, if not could
> someone please set me straight. I was close to making up my mind about
> an engine/supplier/source. But this has caused me to _seriously_
> reconsider anything other than a factory engine. My TC says that as an
> A&P he receives correspondence from the FAA about engine shops that
> have been found to use parts that are not within limits, his comment
> was 'even some of the larger ones have had some instances'. I find all
> of this unsetteling. Any feedback?
> Additionally, In my Prior aircraft, I always flew with 'Factory Remans'
> Are factory remans subject to the same 'limits' issue as in the above
> example? Or are Factory Reman's to 'New' Limits?
>
> Thanks for your enlightment
>
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Fuse
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine questions - Feedback Please |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net>
Deems,
Taking what Michael S. said just a bit further. I believe with the price of
core engines what it is now it appears that the Lycoming new kit engines,
built by the approved shops cost little if any more than an overhauled used
engine.
Prices are going up substantially though, literally in a few days, so for
those on the fence this is the time to decide.
I ordered mine last week. Delivery is running 3-4 months at least according
to my shop.
Just something else to throw into the mix.
Dick Sipp
40065
----- Original Message -----
From: "Deems Davis" <deemsdavis@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 6:29 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Engine questions - Feedback Please
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
> I had my 1st visit from my EAA Tech Councilor who is a long time A&P IA,
> he made some compelling points about anything other than a factory engine.
> His point is that engine parts have 'limits' set by the FAA, if they are
> within limits the part can be reused. And at most engine rebuilders
> facilities it goes into a 'bin/shelf/storage area' for future use in an
> engine rebuild. Say for instance a crankshaft can be .003 undersize (just
> an example I have no idea what the allowable limits really are)and still
> be OK, so the engine builder puts it in the 'good parts' bin where it gets
> used to build your engine. But say shortly after installing your 'new'
> engine the crank wears to .004, then you are actually blissfully flying
> around with a crank that is not within service limits. I'm assuming this
> is true, if not could someone please set me straight. I was close to
> making up my mind about an engine/supplier/source. But this has caused me
> to _seriously_ reconsider anything other than a factory engine. My TC says
> that as an A&P he receives correspondence from the FAA about engine shops
> that have been found to use parts that are not within limits, his comment
> was 'even some of the larger ones have had some instances'. I find all of
> this unsetteling. Any feedback?
> Additionally, In my Prior aircraft, I always flew with 'Factory Remans'
> Are factory remans subject to the same 'limits' issue as in the above
> example? Or are Factory Reman's to 'New' Limits?
>
> Thanks for your enlightment
>
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Fuse
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Engine questions - Feedback Please |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Does that mean you are open to visits?
I would love to see your work, and the interior from Abby and pay for
allot of Avgas!
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Engine questions - Feedback Please
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I think you'll just have to make a trip up here then so I can
take you for a ride, and after we're done you can hold the brakes
while I jump out and listen.
Tim
Larry Rosen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>
> Tim,
> You say:, "I can't be outside to hear it run, but inside it sounds
fine
> to me."
> I am sure there are many on this list that would be more than happy
to
> solve this "problem" for you. ;-)
>
> Larry
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine questions - Feedback Please - Thanks |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
Thanks to all who commented/replied both on and off-list, particularly
the note about imminent price increases. As always this community is a
wealth of knowledge.
Thanks
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse
http://deemsrv10.com/
Do Not Archive
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! --
|