Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:37 AM - Re: Your bucking bar input please. (Niko)
2. 05:31 AM - Fuselage width on Gear dimension (Larry Rosen)
3. 05:41 AM - Re: Fuselage width on Gear dimension (Conti, Rick)
4. 05:53 AM - Re: Fuselage width on Gear dimension (Tim Olson)
5. 05:56 AM - Re: Fuselage width on Gear dimension (Jesse Saint)
6. 05:57 AM - Re: Fuselage width on Gear dimension (Tim Olson)
7. 06:15 AM - Re: Fuselage width on Gear dimension (Doerr, Ray R [NTK])
8. 06:18 AM - Gear width and garage openings (Bob Newman)
9. 07:00 AM - Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear (John W. Cox)
10. 07:26 AM - Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear (Larry Rosen)
11. 07:29 AM - Re: Fuselage width on Gear dimension (Larry Rosen)
12. 07:52 AM - Re: Fuselage width on Gear dimension (Conti, Rick)
13. 08:01 AM - Re: Extra fuel tanks (Albert Gardner)
14. 08:08 AM - Re: Fuselage width on Gear dimension (Jesse Saint)
15. 08:32 AM - Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear (David McNeill)
16. 08:40 AM - Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear (Nikolaos Napoli)
17. 09:19 AM - Autogas for 540 (Dan Masys)
18. 09:22 AM - Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear (Tom Deutsch)
19. 09:24 AM - Re: New fuel valve handle (Randy DeBauw)
20. 09:24 AM - Re: Autogas for 540 (GRANSCOTT@AOL.COM)
21. 09:38 AM - Re: Autogas for 540 (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
22. 09:45 AM - Re: Autogas for 540 (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
23. 09:53 AM - Re: Autogas for 540 (Tommy Norman)
24. 10:49 AM - Re: Autogas for 540 (Cal Hoffman)
25. 11:05 AM - Re: Autogas for 540 (Brian Sponcil)
26. 11:34 AM - Re: Autogas for 540 (Bob Newman)
27. 11:44 AM - Re: Autogas for 540 (John Gonzalez)
28. 11:52 AM - Re: Autogas for 540 (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
29. 12:11 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
30. 12:28 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
31. 12:42 PM - Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear (Conti, Rick)
32. 12:47 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (Conti, Rick)
33. 01:25 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (James Hein)
34. 01:42 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (John Jessen)
35. 01:44 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (LIKE2LOOP@aol.com)
36. 01:45 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (John Jessen)
37. 01:47 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (Kelly McMullen)
38. 02:44 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (Eric Panning)
39. 02:56 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (GRANSCOTT@AOL.COM)
40. 03:16 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (Chris Johnston)
41. 03:33 PM - Re: RV Assembly Workshop (Jay Brinkmeyer)
42. 06:09 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (bob.kaufmann)
43. 06:12 PM - Re: Re: Extra fuel tanks ()
44. 06:20 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (John Gonzalez)
45. 06:56 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (McGANN, Ron)
46. 07:01 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (IO-540) (Tim Lewis)
47. 08:31 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (Kelly McMullen)
48. 08:55 PM - Re: Extra fuel tanks (LessDragProd@aol.com)
49. 09:19 PM - Re: Autogas for 540 (John W. Cox)
50. 09:21 PM - Re: Extra fuel tanks (John W. Cox)
51. 09:36 PM - Re: Re: RV Assembly Workshop (David Maib)
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: | Your bucking bar input please. |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Niko" <nikonapoli@comcast.net>
No it doesn't meet they will fall apart, however, in the case of pop rivets the
designer assumes the steel stem is lost and uses either more rivets or larger
diameter rivets. In this case a pop rivet has aboout one third the strength
of a solid 2117 rivet so one can use three times as many or a larger diameter
or a combination of the two. Also in a lot of cases the number of rivets is
determined by criteria other than strength such as smoothness. Obviously in such
cases one can use a weaker rivet without a penalty. My point below is that
the joint in question is carrying engine loads and I would not weaken it by
substituting pop rivets without either a detail structural analysis of the joint
or an OK from Vans.
Niko
40188
-----Original Message-----
From: "Indran Chelvanayagam" <ichelva@netspace.net.au>
Sent: 4/24/06 3:21:46 AM
To: "rv10-list@matronics.com" <rv10-list@matronics.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Your bucking bar input please.
Does this mean that aeroplanes with pop rivets (eg Zenith, Zodiac, upcoming
RV12) will eventually fall apart?
(Do not archive)
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos Napoli
Sent: Saturday, 22 April 2006 9:42 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Your bucking bar input please.
Hi Deems,
I finished that section about 2 months ago and have allready forgotten exactly
what I did. I did use the empennage bucking bar in a lot of places and a
steel plate about 1/4 " thick by about 2 inches wide and about 8 inches long which
a shoved into tight areas. I believe I might have squeezed some of the rivets
in the area you are talking about. I would caution against using blind rivets
in this area as some of the engine loads are coming through that joint.
If you absolutely must use blind rivets make sure you use something like the
CherryMax ones that have a locking feature that keeps the stem in place. The
problem with most of the pop rivets is that if subjected to vibration the steel
stem falls off and you are left with a hollow aluminum cylinder as your fastener
that has a much reduced strength.
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: | Fuselage width on Gear dimension |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Would someone please measure the maximum width of the fuselage after the
landing gear is installed. I believe this would be the dimension from
the outside of the landing gear.
I have a 3 car garage but it is only 22' deep and there is a column
between the bays. I am trying to figure out if I can put the plane on
the gear and install the engine with the assembly on an angle and still
get it out with out major surgery on something like the garage door
opening. My alternate is to construct a temporary garage extension
which I want to avoid if possible.
--
Larry Rosen
RV-10 #356
http://lrosen.nerv10.com
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuselage width on Gear dimension |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
Check the three view drawing (available on Tim's site), it's 7' 4" to
the center of the tires.. I have the same issue.
Thank You
Rick Conti
Senior Engineering Manager
The Boeing Company
office: 703 - 414 - 6141
blackberry: 571 - 215 - 6134
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Rosen [mailto:LarryRosen@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:27 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage width on Gear dimension
--> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Would someone please measure the maximum width of the fuselage after the
landing gear is installed. I believe this would be the dimension from
the outside of the landing gear.
I have a 3 car garage but it is only 22' deep and there is a column
between the bays. I am trying to figure out if I can put the plane on
the gear and install the engine with the assembly on an angle and still
get it out with out major surgery on something like the garage door
opening. My alternate is to construct a temporary garage extension
which I want to avoid if possible.
--
Larry Rosen
RV-10 #356
http://lrosen.nerv10.com
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: | Re: Fuselage width on Gear dimension |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I think you're right around 8'. I used a 108" wide trailer to haul
it to the airport and I had 4 or 6 inches on the outsides of each
tire. If you plan for 9' wide, you should definitely have plenty of
room. That's not exact, but it should be close. I think when we
were measuring the tire-center widths for where to put the
ramps to the trailer, it was about 93 or 94" apart.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Larry Rosen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>
> Would someone please measure the maximum width of the fuselage after the
> landing gear is installed. I believe this would be the dimension from
> the outside of the landing gear.
>
> I have a 3 car garage but it is only 22' deep and there is a column
> between the bays. I am trying to figure out if I can put the plane on
> the gear and install the engine with the assembly on an angle and still
> get it out with out major surgery on something like the garage door
> opening. My alternate is to construct a temporary garage extension
> which I want to avoid if possible.
>
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: | Fuselage width on Gear dimension |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
7'9" on gear with no wheels or tires on. It may spread a little with the
weight of the engine.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
352-465-4545
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Rosen
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:27 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage width on Gear dimension
--> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Would someone please measure the maximum width of the fuselage after the
landing gear is installed. I believe this would be the dimension from
the outside of the landing gear.
I have a 3 car garage but it is only 22' deep and there is a column
between the bays. I am trying to figure out if I can put the plane on
the gear and install the engine with the assembly on an angle and still
get it out with out major surgery on something like the garage door
opening. My alternate is to construct a temporary garage extension
which I want to avoid if possible.
--
Larry Rosen
RV-10 #356
http://lrosen.nerv10.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: Fuselage width on Gear dimension |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Ahhh, you may be right on. In the email I just posted I said we measured
93 or 94" when setting up the ramps. I think that wasn't tire centers,
but was the outside edges of the ramps, which would be about right
if the tire centers were 88".
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Conti, Rick wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
>
> Check the three view drawing (available on Tim's site), it's 7' 4" to
> the center of the tires.. I have the same issue.
>
> Thank You
> Rick Conti
> Senior Engineering Manager
> The Boeing Company
> office: 703 - 414 - 6141
> blackberry: 571 - 215 - 6134
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Rosen [mailto:LarryRosen@comcast.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:27 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage width on Gear dimension
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>
> Would someone please measure the maximum width of the fuselage after the
>
> landing gear is installed. I believe this would be the dimension from
> the outside of the landing gear.
>
> I have a 3 car garage but it is only 22' deep and there is a column
> between the bays. I am trying to figure out if I can put the plane on
> the gear and install the engine with the assembly on an angle and still
> get it out with out major surgery on something like the garage door
> opening. My alternate is to construct a temporary garage extension
> which I want to avoid if possible.
>
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: | Fuselage width on Gear dimension |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr@sprint.com>
I just moved mine to the airport last week on a rollback tow
truck. The width at the outside of the tires is 7' 10" with the hex
spindle for the wheel pant hanging out further. The spindle is 5" off
the ground. I had to find a rollback tow truck that was 8' wide and the
side rails come off to be able to do the move.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
CDNI Principal Engineer
Sprint PCS
16020 West 113th Street
Lenexa, KS 66219
Mailstop KSLNXK0101
(913) 859-1414 (Office)
(913) 226-0106 (Pcs)
(913) 859-1234 (Fax)
Ray.R.Doerr@sprint.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuselage width on Gear dimension
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I think you're right around 8'. I used a 108" wide trailer to haul
it to the airport and I had 4 or 6 inches on the outsides of each
tire. If you plan for 9' wide, you should definitely have plenty of
room. That's not exact, but it should be close. I think when we
were measuring the tire-center widths for where to put the
ramps to the trailer, it was about 93 or 94" apart.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Larry Rosen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>
> Would someone please measure the maximum width of the fuselage after
the
> landing gear is installed. I believe this would be the dimension from
> the outside of the landing gear.
>
> I have a 3 car garage but it is only 22' deep and there is a column
> between the bays. I am trying to figure out if I can put the plane on
> the gear and install the engine with the assembly on an angle and
still
> get it out with out major surgery on something like the garage door
> opening. My alternate is to construct a temporary garage extension
> which I want to avoid if possible.
>
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: | Gear width and garage openings |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Newman" <rnewman@lutron.com>
When we built our 3 Glastar's we did each of them in an area that
ultimately required us to roll thru an 8' wide garage door opening.
The gear on a Glastar is about 94" axel to axel when installed, but when
you add an engine, prop and all the other goodies it spreads to more
than 8'. The solution, which I believe will be applicable to the
RV-10 is to attach a ratcheting tie-down strap between to the two axels,
down low near the wheel and pull the two axels towards eachl together.
We were able to very easily spring the gear in and roll right thru the
door opening. :)
Bob Newman
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: | My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
No. When the manufacturer calls out a 7.9mm ream then the objective may
just be a tolerance (tight) fit. Fretting and Galling will ensue over a
short period of time. The issue (question) should always be, if this
doesn't work what is the serviceability issue the second time I do it.
Don't try to sand the cadmium coating off either.
Both the mount, the bolt and the gear leg would need replacement.
Calculate the hard dollar cost, then add the effort to retrofit
correctly reamed replacement parts. That includes R & R. In the effort
to cut a corner or two, or save a few dollars, the experimental builder
can give legions of stories of shooting themselves in the proverbial
foot just a few months or years down the road.
That said, I have a source of liquid nitrogen at work which makes such a
clearance the non-issue. Study the concept and calculate the
serviceability cost. It is a corner that I would say NO to. Too much
is riding on it. Take a moment and ask your buddies at work about
altering written aeronautical plans. Talk to your DAR and Tech
Inspector.
Van also says alter the design at your own risk. Until they put 5/16"
in writing, accept no employees dialog on such an issue (unless
admissible in Oregon court).
John Cox - $00.02
Do not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Conti, Rick
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 7:08 AM
Subject: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
Whenever I start a new "kit", I review the instructions several times,
once to ensure I have the necessary tools and parts. The .311" drill
bit appeared to be a problem. I called Van's and received an
interesting answer: I was told a 5/16 bit would be okay. I haven't
installed the gear yet and after reading about loose landing gear I had
second thoughts. I received my .311" reamer from McMaster-Carr (thanks
for the info) yesterday. But is has occurred to me, that 5/16" would be
fine provided the bolt matched. Drilling with a 5/16" bit though the
leg and support would not cause a problem. The problem would be from an
undersized bolt. Would everyone agree 5/16" would be okay with a proper
(precise fit) bolt?
Thank You
Rick Conti
Senior Engineering Manager
The Boeing Company
office: 703 - 414 - 6141
blackberry: 571 - 215 - 6134
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: | Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Not all of us would have access to liquid nitrogen, but dry ice may do
the trick.
Larry
John W. Cox wrote:
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>
>No. When the manufacturer calls out a 7.9mm ream then the objective may
>just be a tolerance (tight) fit. Fretting and Galling will ensue over a
>short period of time. The issue (question) should always be, if this
>doesn't work what is the serviceability issue the second time I do it.
>Don't try to sand the cadmium coating off either.
>
>Both the mount, the bolt and the gear leg would need replacement.
>Calculate the hard dollar cost, then add the effort to retrofit
>correctly reamed replacement parts. That includes R & R. In the effort
>to cut a corner or two, or save a few dollars, the experimental builder
>can give legions of stories of shooting themselves in the proverbial
>foot just a few months or years down the road.
>
>That said, I have a source of liquid nitrogen at work which makes such a
>clearance the non-issue. Study the concept and calculate the
>serviceability cost. It is a corner that I would say NO to. Too much
>is riding on it. Take a moment and ask your buddies at work about
>altering written aeronautical plans. Talk to your DAR and Tech
>Inspector.
>
>Van also says alter the design at your own risk. Until they put 5/16"
>in writing, accept no employees dialog on such an issue (unless
>admissible in Oregon court).
>
>John Cox - $00.02
>Do not Archive
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Conti, Rick
>Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 7:08 AM
>To: RV 10
>Subject: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
>
>Whenever I start a new "kit", I review the instructions several times,
>once to ensure I have the necessary tools and parts. The .311" drill
>bit appeared to be a problem. I called Van's and received an
>interesting answer: I was told a 5/16 bit would be okay. I haven't
>installed the gear yet and after reading about loose landing gear I had
>second thoughts. I received my .311" reamer from McMaster-Carr (thanks
>for the info) yesterday. But is has occurred to me, that 5/16" would be
>fine provided the bolt matched. Drilling with a 5/16" bit though the
>leg and support would not cause a problem. The problem would be from an
>undersized bolt. Would everyone agree 5/16" would be okay with a proper
>(precise fit) bolt?
>
>Thank You
>Rick Conti
>Senior Engineering Manager
>The Boeing Company
> office: 703 - 414 - 6141
>blackberry: 571 - 215 - 6134
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Fuselage width on Gear dimension |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Thank you all for the quick response. Unfortunately, I do not like the
answer. :-(
Now, how do I tell the wife that I am going to have an extension off the
garage?
Larry Rosen
do not archive
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuselage width on Gear dimension |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
Tell her it's an anniversary gift.
DO NOT ARCHIVE... or tell my wife I wrote this.
Thank You
Rick Conti
Senior Engineering Manager
The Boeing Company
office: 703 - 414 - 6141
blackberry: 571 - 215 - 6134
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Rosen [mailto:LarryRosen@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuselage width on Gear dimension
--> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Thank you all for the quick response. Unfortunately, I do not like the
answer. :-(
Now, how do I tell the wife that I am going to have an extension off the
garage?
Larry Rosen
do not archive
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: | Extra fuel tanks |
Our FBO here gives home-base pilots a excellent deal on avgas-at one
point
last year during the last run-up in prices, there was almost $2/gal
difference in area gas prices. Bigger tanks would give me greater out
and
back range without having to refuel.
Albert Gardner
Yuma, AZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LessDragProd@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Extra fuel tanks
How long did you want to sit?
At full throttle at 2100 RPM and 60 gallons, you can sit for 4 1/2 hours
and
still have a half hour reserve.
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 04/26/2006 4:25:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
gorejr@bellsouth.net writes:
--> RV10-List message posted by: <gorejr@bellsouth.net>
Is it possible to add the 15 gallon extra fuel with the quickbuild wing?
I
know alot of the fuel system is in place. Thanks!
Jim Gore RV-10
Griffin GA
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: | Fuselage width on Gear dimension |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Another option is to put each wheel on a floor dolly so it can move
sideways, then you can get one gear leg out and slide it over enough to get
the other one out. We have gotten ours through an opening 88" wide this
way. We didn't have the engine on and we were carrying it, but this is
probably your solution. You would probably want to layout the gear and
engine and prop in plywood, cut it out as accurately as possibly, lay it on
the floor and see if it can get out.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
352-465-4545
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Rosen
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuselage width on Gear dimension
--> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Thank you all for the quick response. Unfortunately, I do not like the
answer. :-(
Now, how do I tell the wife that I am going to have an extension off the
garage?
Larry Rosen
do not archive
--
--
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
Do you really want to shrink the bolt to get a tight fit? How will you ever
remove gear leg in the event of accidental damage that requires it?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Rosen" <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>
> Not all of us would have access to liquid nitrogen, but dry ice may do the
> trick.
>
> Larry
>
> John W. Cox wrote:
>
>>--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>>
>>No. When the manufacturer calls out a 7.9mm ream then the objective may
>>just be a tolerance (tight) fit. Fretting and Galling will ensue over a
>>short period of time. The issue (question) should always be, if this
>>doesn't work what is the serviceability issue the second time I do it.
>>Don't try to sand the cadmium coating off either.
>>
>>Both the mount, the bolt and the gear leg would need replacement.
>>Calculate the hard dollar cost, then add the effort to retrofit
>>correctly reamed replacement parts. That includes R & R. In the effort
>>to cut a corner or two, or save a few dollars, the experimental builder
>>can give legions of stories of shooting themselves in the proverbial
>>foot just a few months or years down the road.
>>
>>That said, I have a source of liquid nitrogen at work which makes such a
>>clearance the non-issue. Study the concept and calculate the
>>serviceability cost. It is a corner that I would say NO to. Too much
>>is riding on it. Take a moment and ask your buddies at work about
>>altering written aeronautical plans. Talk to your DAR and Tech
>>Inspector.
>>
>>Van also says alter the design at your own risk. Until they put 5/16"
>>in writing, accept no employees dialog on such an issue (unless
>>admissible in Oregon court).
>>
>>John Cox - $00.02
>>Do not Archive
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Conti, Rick
>>Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 7:08 AM
>>To: RV 10
>>Subject: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
>>
>>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
>>
>>Whenever I start a new "kit", I review the instructions several times,
>>once to ensure I have the necessary tools and parts. The .311" drill
>>bit appeared to be a problem. I called Van's and received an
>>interesting answer: I was told a 5/16 bit would be okay. I haven't
>>installed the gear yet and after reading about loose landing gear I had
>>second thoughts. I received my .311" reamer from McMaster-Carr (thanks
>>for the info) yesterday. But is has occurred to me, that 5/16" would be
>>fine provided the bolt matched. Drilling with a 5/16" bit though the
>>leg and support would not cause a problem. The problem would be from an
>>undersized bolt. Would everyone agree 5/16" would be okay with a proper
>>(precise fit) bolt?
>>
>>Thank You
>>Rick Conti
>>Senior Engineering Manager
>>The Boeing Company
>> office: 703 - 414 - 6141
>>blackberry: 571 - 215 - 6134
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: | Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear |
I totally agree on this. The 7.9 mm drill is inexpensive compared to the hardware
its being used on, and its easy to locate one. Its worth several minutes
of fuel flying the RV10.
Niko
----- Original Message ----
From: John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:57:35 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
No. When the manufacturer calls out a 7.9mm ream then the objective may
just be a tolerance (tight) fit. Fretting and Galling will ensue over a
short period of time. The issue (question) should always be, if this
doesn't work what is the serviceability issue the second time I do it.
Don't try to sand the cadmium coating off either.
Both the mount, the bolt and the gear leg would need replacement.
Calculate the hard dollar cost, then add the effort to retrofit
correctly reamed replacement parts. That includes R & R. In the effort
to cut a corner or two, or save a few dollars, the experimental builder
can give legions of stories of shooting themselves in the proverbial
foot just a few months or years down the road.
That said, I have a source of liquid nitrogen at work which makes such a
clearance the non-issue. Study the concept and calculate the
serviceability cost. It is a corner that I would say NO to. Too much
is riding on it. Take a moment and ask your buddies at work about
altering written aeronautical plans. Talk to your DAR and Tech
Inspector.
Van also says alter the design at your own risk. Until they put 5/16"
in writing, accept no employees dialog on such an issue (unless
admissible in Oregon court).
John Cox - $00.02
Do not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Conti, Rick
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 7:08 AM
Subject: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
Whenever I start a new "kit", I review the instructions several times,
once to ensure I have the necessary tools and parts. The .311" drill
bit appeared to be a problem. I called Van's and received an
interesting answer: I was told a 5/16 bit would be okay. I haven't
installed the gear yet and after reading about loose landing gear I had
second thoughts. I received my .311" reamer from McMaster-Carr (thanks
for the info) yesterday. But is has occurred to me, that 5/16" would be
fine provided the bolt matched. Drilling with a 5/16" bit though the
leg and support would not cause a problem. The problem would be from an
undersized bolt. Would everyone agree 5/16" would be okay with a proper
(precise fit) bolt?
Thank You
Rick Conti
Senior Engineering Manager
The Boeing Company
office: 703 - 414 - 6141
blackberry: 571 - 215 - 6134
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this week. It is
now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an autogas STC. Had
one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on autogas, saving more than
$10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540, with those
having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87 octane:
0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*, -A1A5*, -A1B5*,
-A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*, -D1A5*,
-E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*, -H1A5D*, -H2A5D*, -H1B5D*,
-H2B5D* -F1B5*
I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a carburator
to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of greed, where every
time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up a dollar.
Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
-Dan Masys
#40448
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear |
How long should the bit or reamer be? Is a bit or reamer more
preferable?
Tom Deutsch
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos
Napoli
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
I totally agree on this. The 7.9 mm drill is inexpensive compared to
the hardware its being used on, and its easy to locate one. Its worth
several minutes of fuel flying the RV10.
Niko
----- Original Message ----
From: John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:57:35 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
No. When the manufacturer calls out a 7.9mm ream then the objective may
just be a tolerance (tight) fit. Fretting and Galling will ensue over a
short period of time. The issue (question) should always be, if this
doesn't work what is the serviceability issue the second time I do it.
Don't try to sand the cadmium coating off either.
Both the mount, the bolt and the gear leg would need replacement.
Calculate the hard dollar cost, then add the effort to retrofit
correctly reamed replacement parts. That includes R & R. In the effort
to cut a corner or two, or save a few dollars, the experimental builder
can give legions of stories of shooting themselves in the proverbial
foot just a few months or years down the road.
That said, I have a source of liquid nitrogen at work which makes such a
clearance the non-issue. Study the concept and calculate the
serviceability cost. It is a corner that I would say NO to. Too much
is riding on it. Take a moment and ask your buddies at work about
altering written aeronautical plans. Talk to your DAR and Tech
Inspector.
Van also says alter the design at your own risk. Until they put 5/16"
in writing, accept no employees dialog on such an issue (unless
admissible in Oregon court).
John Cox - $00.02
Do not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Conti, Rick
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 7:08 AM
Subject: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
Whenever I start a new "kit", I review the instructions several times,
once to ensure I have the necessary tools and parts. The .311" drill
bit appeared to be a problem. I called Van's and received an
interesting answer: I was told a 5/16 bit would be okay. I haven't
installed the gear yet and after reading about loose landing gear I had
second thoughts. I received my .311" reamer from McMaster-Carr (thanks
for the info) yesterday. But is has occurred to me, that 5/16" would be
fine provided the bolt matched. Drilling with a 5/16" bit though the
leg and support would not cause a problem. The problem would be from an
undersized bolt. Would everyone agree 5/16" would be okay with a proper
(precise fit) bolt?
Thank You
Rick Conti
Senior Engineering Manager
The Boeing Company
office: 703 - 414 - 6141
blackberry: 571 - 215 -
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New fuel valve handle |
Mike count me in. Please send another email when stock has arrived.
Thanks, Randy
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Lauritsen - Work
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 1:24 PM
Subject: RV10-List: New fuel valve handle
We have designed a new fuel handle for those using Van's stock fuel
valve.
They will be available in a few weeks for $47.
See our website for more info or to pre-order at:
http://www.cleavelandtoolstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=3DRVFS1
Mike
Mike Lauritsen
Cleaveland Aircraft Tool
2225 First St.
Boone, Iowa 50036
515-432-6794
mike@cleavelandtool.com
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Autogas for 540 |
Dan did you read this month's 100LL article in AvConsumer?
Interesting reading...
Patrick Scott
do not archive
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
Well, with injection you can lean that sucker out much more than with a
carb. It would be interesting to run the numbers comparing that
situation . . .
TDT
40025
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Masys
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:19 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this week.
It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an autogas
STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on
autogas, saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540,
with those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87
octane:
0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*,
-A1A5*, -A1B5*,
-A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*,
-D1A5*,
-E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*, -H1A5D*,
-H2A5D*, -H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a
carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of
greed, where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up
a dollar.
Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
-Dan Masys
#40448
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Autogas for 540 |
I get to fly behind the IO 540 in a C 182 going slowly and using a good
engine monitor G-1000 the best I can do is 9 gallons per hour doing 105kts..I
know the frame of the RV 10 is better suited but are they're any STC for fuel
injected 540's? If you're considering going the auto fuel route make sure all
the parts between the tank and engine will not react with the added materials
in auto gas...alcohol's and dispersant's...
Patrick
do not archive
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tommy Norman" <tie-norman@comcast.net>
It is my understanding that these STCs were intended to use alcohol free
fuel (i.e. no methanol or ethanol). This may be an issue since MTBE is
being phased out and replaced with ethanol.
http://www.eaa.org/education/fuel/knopp_alcohol.html
Tommy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Masys
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 11:19 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this week.
It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an autogas
STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on
autogas, saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540,
with those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87
octane:
0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*,
-A1A5*, -A1B5*,
-A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*,
-D1A5*,
-E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*, -H1A5D*,
-H2A5D*, -H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a
carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of
greed, where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up
a dollar.
Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
-Dan Masys
#40448
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Autogas for 540 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Cal Hoffman" <cehoffman@bellsouth.net>
My experience with the O-540 has been that the 235 hp versions run well on
auto fuel, but the 250hp and 260 hp versions tend to ping.
Cal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Masys" <dmasys@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:18 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>
> 100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this week.
It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an autogas
STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on autogas,
saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
>
> Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540, with
those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87 octane:
>
0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*, -A1A5*,
-A1B5*,
> -A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*, -D1A
5*,
> -E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*, -H1A5D*, -H2A5D*,
-H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
>
> I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a
carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of greed,
where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up a dollar.
>
> Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
>
> -Dan Masys
> #40448
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Autogas for 540 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Brian Sponcil" <bsponcil@belinblank.org>
I'm thinking it as well. Keep in mind however, that the choice in engine
isn't the only factor in safely running auto-gas. For instance, the
Cherokee 235 with the 0-540-B4B5 has the autogas STC whereas an Apache
running the very same engines does not. The same can be said for the
mooneys and comanches. Pull the engines out of those planes and put them
into a cherokee 180 and you go from no autogas to autogas approved.
According to Petersen, the tighter the cowl and the higher the performance,
the harder it was to pass their tests. I guess in the case of the mooneys
and comanches, they had problems with the fuel boiling in the carb. If I
remember correctly, one of the tests was to heat the fuel tanks (seems sort
of dangerous) to 110 degrees and then do a MaxPerformance climb all the way
to 12,500. Any hiccups in performance (loss of power, fuel pressure, etc)
and it failed the test.
Does that mean if you fly conservatively, ie - don't do maximum performance
climbs to 12,500, you won't have problems? I don't know. I think auto-gas
is a possibility in the RV-10s, but someone is going to have to be the beta
tester :-(
-Brian
#40497
N211BD
Iowa City, IA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Masys" <dmasys@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>
> 100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this week.
> It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an autogas
> STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on autogas,
> saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
>
> Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540, with
> those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87 octane:
> 0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*, -A1A5*,
> -A1B5*,
> -A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*, -D1A5*,
> -E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*, -H1A5D*, -H2A5D*,
> -H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
>
> I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a
> carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of greed,
> where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up a
> dollar.
>
> Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
>
> -Dan Masys
> #40448
>
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Autogas for 540 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Newman" <rnewman@lutron.com>
Part of my plan is flexibility in choices, I'm using an O-540-E4B5 in
RV-10.
-Bob Newman
>>> dmasys@cox.net 4/27/2006 12:18:42 PM >>>
--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this
week. It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an
autogas STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on
autogas, saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540,
with those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87
octane:
0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*,
-A1A5*, -A1B5*,
-A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*,
-D1A5*,
-E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*, -H1A5D*,
-H2A5D*, -H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a
carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of
greed, where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up
a dollar.
Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
-Dan Masys
#40448
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Maybe time to start really considering something other than a Lycosaur!
JG, #409
Do not archive
>From: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
>Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:18:42 +0000
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>
>100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this week.
>It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an autogas
>STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on autogas,
>saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
>
>Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540, with
>those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87 octane:
>0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*, -A1A5*,
>-A1B5*,
>-A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*,
>-D1A5*,
>-E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*, -H1A5D*, -H2A5D*,
>-H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
>
>I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a
>carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of greed,
>where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up a dollar.
>
>Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
>
>-Dan Masys
>#40448
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
We need to show these guys how big the homebuilt market is. They've
been ignoring it in favor of the OEMs . . .
http://www.vaircraftengine.com/
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=9f2a2c16-1451-479a-ad6
1-40eec3d4b353&Dynamic=1&Range=NOW&FromDate=04%2F24%2F2006&ToDate=04%2F2
7%2F2006&Category=%2Findex.cfm
TDT
40025
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez"
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Maybe time to start really considering something other than a Lycosaur!
JG, #409
Do not archive
>From: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
>Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:18:42 +0000
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>
>100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this
week.
>It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an
autogas
>STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on
autogas,
>saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
>
>Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540,
with
>those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87
octane:
>0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*,
-A1A5*,
>-A1B5*,
>-A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*,
>-D1A5*,
>-E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*, -H1A5D*,
-H2A5D*,
>-H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
>
>I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a
>carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of
greed,
>where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up a
dollar.
>
>Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
>
>-Dan Masys
>#40448
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Isn't this the Bombardier engine before they split off?
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
Do Not Archive
Recent RV-10 Build Activity
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:51 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
--> <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
We need to show these guys how big the homebuilt market is. They've
been ignoring it in favor of the OEMs . . .
http://www.vaircraftengine.com/
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=3D9f2a2c16-1451-479a-ad=
6
1-40eec3d4b353&Dynamic=3D1&Range=3DNOW&FromDate=3D04%2F24%2F2006&ToDate=3D=
04%2F2
7%2F2006&Category=3D%2Findex.cfm
TDT
40025
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez"
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Maybe time to start really considering something other than a Lycosaur!
JG, #409
Do not archive
>From: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
>Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:18:42 +0000
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>
>100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this
week.
>It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an
autogas
>STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on
autogas,
>saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
>
>Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540,
with
>those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87
octane:
>0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*,
-A1A5*,
>-A1B5*,
>-A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*,
>-D1A5*, -E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*,
>-H1A5D*,
-H2A5D*,
>-H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
>
>I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a
>carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of
greed,
>where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up a
dollar.
>
>Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
>
>-Dan Masys
>#40448
>
>
=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
=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 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Correct-a-mundo.
I remember seeing the V Engines at Oshkosh 2003. And I thought avionics
certification was slow and painful!
TDT
40025
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:10 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
Isn't this the Bombardier engine before they split off?
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
Do Not Archive
Recent RV-10 Build Activity
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:51 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
--> <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
We need to show these guys how big the homebuilt market is. They've
been ignoring it in favor of the OEMs . . .
http://www.vaircraftengine.com/
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=3D9f2a2c16-1451-479a-ad=
6
1-40eec3d4b353&Dynamic=3D1&Range=3DNOW&FromDate=3D04%2F24%2F2006&ToDate=3D=
04%2F2
7%2F2006&Category=3D%2Findex.cfm
TDT
40025
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez"
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Maybe time to start really considering something other than a Lycosaur!
JG, #409
Do not archive
>From: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
>Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:18:42 +0000
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>
>100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this
week.
>It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an
autogas
>STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on
autogas,
>saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
>
>Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540,
with
>those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87
octane:
>0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*,
-A1A5*,
>-A1B5*,
>-A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*,
>-D1A5*, -E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*,
>-H1A5D*,
-H2A5D*,
>-H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
>
>I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a
>carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of
greed,
>where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up a
dollar.
>
>Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
>
>-Dan Masys
>#40448
>
>
=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
RV10-List Email Forum -
more:
bsp;
HREF=3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic=
s
.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
bsp; - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
bsp;
HREF=3D"http://wiki.matronics.com">http://wiki.matronics.com
=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
bsp; - List Contribution Web Site -
bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
HREF=3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c=
o
ntribution
=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 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
Bob,
I'm not sure I understand. I've never used a reamer and just realized I
shouldn't use an air drill with a reamer. Maybe the hand wrench from my
tap & die set.
What under size hole did you drill before using the .311" reamer?
Please explain the grinding of the shoulders at the reamer stem side to
be able to pull up and through.
Does any of this make sense without using a close tolerance bolt?
Bill suggested using a .3125 reamer with a 5/16" close tolerance bolt.
All of which sounds good.
Thank You
Rick Conti
Senior Engineering Manager
The Boeing Company
office: 703 - 414 - 6141
blackberry: 571 - 215 - 6134
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Kermanj [mailto:flysrv10@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Rob Kermanj" <flysrv10@gmail.com>
I used the same reamer as you have purchased. I found it easier to
insert the reamer from the button, chuck it and pull it through the
hole. If you decide to do this, you may need to grind the blade
shoulders at the reamer stem side to be able to pull up through.
On 4/26/06, Conti, Rick <rick.conti@boeing.com> wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
>
> Whenever I start a new "kit", I review the instructions several times,
> once to ensure I have the necessary tools and parts. The .311" drill
> bit appeared to be a problem. I called Van's and received an
> interesting answer: I was told a 5/16 bit would be okay. I haven't
> installed the gear yet and after reading about loose landing gear I
had
> second thoughts. I received my .311" reamer from McMaster-Carr
(thanks
> for the info) yesterday. But is has occurred to me, that 5/16" would
be
> fine provided the bolt matched. Drilling with a 5/16" bit though the
> leg and support would not cause a problem. The problem would be from
an
> undersized bolt. Would everyone agree 5/16" would be okay with a
proper
> (precise fit) bolt?
>
> Thank You
> Rick Conti
> Senior Engineering Manager
> The Boeing Company
> office: 703 - 414 - 6141
> blackberry: 571 - 215 - 6134
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
I've never owned a plane with an auto-gas STC. How do you refuel the
plane? I wouldn't image the wings would fit under the canopy of an
Exxon station.
Thank You
Rick Conti
Senior Engineering Manager
The Boeing Company
office: 703 - 414 - 6141
blackberry: 571 - 215 - 6134
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Newman [mailto:rnewman@lutron.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Newman" <rnewman@lutron.com>
Part of my plan is flexibility in choices, I'm using an O-540-E4B5 in
RV-10.
-Bob Newman
>>> dmasys@cox.net 4/27/2006 12:18:42 PM >>>
--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this
week. It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an
autogas STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on
autogas, saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540,
with those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87
octane:
0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*,
-A1A5*, -A1B5*,
-A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*,
-D1A5*,
-E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*, -H1A5D*,
-H2A5D*, -H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a
carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of
greed, where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up
a dollar.
Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
-Dan Masys
#40448
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Autogas for 540 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: James Hein <n8vim@arrl.net>
You can use a pickup truck (remember those? They came before SUV's and
are often seen free-range roaming around farms) with a fuel transfer
tank in the back. Those tanks tend to hold a few hundred gallons.
You will have to swipe your credit card a few times to fill up though
(the pumps here in town stop at $75, and you have to start over again).
Imagine, the luxury of your own fuel truck!
-Jim
do not archive the preceeding humor
Conti, Rick wrote:
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
>
>I've never owned a plane with an auto-gas STC. How do you refuel the
>plane? I wouldn't image the wings would fit under the canopy of an
>Exxon station.
>
>Thank You
>Rick Conti
>Senior Engineering Manager
>The Boeing Company
> office: 703 - 414 - 6141
>blackberry: 571 - 215 - 6134
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Newman [mailto:rnewman@lutron.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:32 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Newman" <rnewman@lutron.com>
>
>Part of my plan is flexibility in choices, I'm using an O-540-E4B5 in
>RV-10.
>
>-Bob Newman
>
>
>
>
>>>>dmasys@cox.net 4/27/2006 12:18:42 PM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>
>100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this
>week. It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an
>autogas STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on
>autogas, saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
>
>Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540,
>with those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87
>octane:
>0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*,
>-A1A5*, -A1B5*,
>-A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*,
>-D1A5*,
>-E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*, -H1A5D*,
>-H2A5D*, -H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
>
>I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a
>carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of
>greed, where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up
>a dollar.
>
>Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
>
>-Dan Masys
>#40448
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Yep
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:10 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
Isn't this the Bombardier engine before they split off?
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
Do Not Archive
Recent RV-10 Build Activity
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:51 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
--> <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
We need to show these guys how big the homebuilt market is. They've been
ignoring it in favor of the OEMs . . .
http://www.vaircraftengine.com/
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=9f2a2c16-1451-479a-ad6
1-40eec3d4b353&Dynamic=1&Range=NOW&FromDate=04%2F24%2F2006&ToDate=04%2F2
7%2F2006&Category=%2Findex.cfm
TDT
40025
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez"
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Maybe time to start really considering something other than a Lycosaur!
JG, #409
Do not archive
>From: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
>Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:18:42 +0000
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>
>100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this
week.
>It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an
autogas
>STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on
autogas,
>saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
>
>Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540,
with
>those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87
octane:
>0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*,
-A1A5*,
>-A1B5*,
>-A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*,
>-D1A5*, -E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*,
>-H1A5D*,
-H2A5D*,
>-H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
>
>I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a
>carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of
greed,
>where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up a
dollar.
>
>Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
>
>-Dan Masys
>#40448
>
>
====================================
RV10-List Email Forum -
more:
bsp;
HREF="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?RV10-List
====================================
bsp; - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
bsp;
HREF="http://wiki.matronics.com">http://wiki.matronics.com
====================================
bsp; - List Contribution Web Site -
bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
HREF="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution
====================================
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: LIKE2LOOP@aol.com
In a message dated 4/27/06, rick.conti@boeing.com writes:
<< I've never owned a plane with an auto-gas STC. How do you refuel the
plane? >>
Rick,
My C-170 has an STC for auto gas. We get it at a local grass strip,
self-serve pumps, Indiantown (X58). The only Boeing's that land there seem to
be 6 Stearmans based there!!! Think general aviation.
Steve
Port St. Lucie, FL
772-475-5556
Sent from my Treo 600
do not archive
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Fellow 4 doors down from me with a couple Taylor Craft has a fuel tank on a
trailer. Seems to work well for him. Other than fuel in the hanger, always
a hazard, not sure what the drawback would be?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Hein
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
--> RV10-List message posted by: James Hein <n8vim@arrl.net>
You can use a pickup truck (remember those? They came before SUV's and are
often seen free-range roaming around farms) with a fuel transfer tank in the
back. Those tanks tend to hold a few hundred gallons.
You will have to swipe your credit card a few times to fill up though (the
pumps here in town stop at $75, and you have to start over again).
Imagine, the luxury of your own fuel truck!
-Jim
do not archive the preceeding humor
Conti, Rick wrote:
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
>
>I've never owned a plane with an auto-gas STC. How do you refuel the
>plane? I wouldn't image the wings would fit under the canopy of an
>Exxon station.
>
>Thank You
>Rick Conti
>Senior Engineering Manager
>The Boeing Company
> office: 703 - 414 - 6141
>blackberry: 571 - 215 - 6134
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Newman [mailto:rnewman@lutron.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:32 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Newman" <rnewman@lutron.com>
>
>Part of my plan is flexibility in choices, I'm using an O-540-E4B5 in
>RV-10.
>
>-Bob Newman
>
>
>
>
>>>>dmasys@cox.net 4/27/2006 12:18:42 PM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>
>100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this
>week. It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an
>autogas STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours
>on autogas, saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
>
>Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540,
>with those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87
>octane:
>0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*,
>-A1A5*, -A1B5*, -A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*,
>-A4C5*, -A4D5*, -D1A5*, -E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*,
>-H2A5*, -H1A5D*, -H2A5D*, -H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
>
>I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a
>carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of
>greed, where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes
>up a dollar.
>
>Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
>
>-Dan Masys
>#40448
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Autogas for 540 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Unless you are attempting to keep the engine type certificated, STCs
wouldn't matter. However, materials compatibility is likely to be a big
issue. I know of a former Mooney owner who ran his O-360 on 91 octane
mogas. The fuel attacked to the polysulfide (PRC) in the fuel tanks
until it was a pink goo. I don't know if the polysulfides used today
are more resistant than what Mooney used in the late '60s, but I'd be
real concerned about affecting your tank sealant.
Certain low wing planes such as the Mooney were unable to get STCs
because of vapor issues, while others like the Cherokees had to change
fuel pumps.
Injection or carburetion makes little difference. Compression ratio is
the issue, with 8.5 being about the limit for 91 octane, and probably
8.0 for 87 octane.
Quoting GRANSCOTT@aol.com:
> I get to fly behind the IO 540 in a C 182 going slowly and using a good
> engine monitor G-1000 the best I can do is 9 gallons per hour doing
> 105kts..I
> know the frame of the RV 10 is better suited but are they're any STC
> for fuel
> injected 540's? If you're considering going the auto fuel route
> make sure all
> the parts between the tank and engine will not react with the added
> materials
> in auto gas...alcohol's and dispersant's...
>
> Patrick
>
> do not archive
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning <ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
ECi Titan IO-540 kit engine (~ 2007?) is supposed to
be autofuel capable. This is partly because they are
using a fuel spider with fixed orifice and not a fuel
servo with some autogas sensitive components. Still
they rec 100LL initial for valves. Note this system
requires a return fuel line. I have built these
fittings into my tanks just in case. Part of reason
for return line is to return any vapor to tank.
Autogas and ethanol autogas in particular has lower
vapor pressure. Ethanol is also a good solvent for
lots of things....
Deltahawk claims they sold out 2005 and 2006
production runs but I have never seen a builder site
which makes me wonder if they really have that many
out there. I saw one article that 2005 run was only
two engines.
A number of builders are looking at rotary engines as
well.
Eric
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Autogas for 540 |
In a message dated 4/27/06 5:52:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com writes:
Deltahawk claims they sold out 2005 and 2006
production runs but I have never seen a builder site
which makes me wonder if they really have that many
out there.
I know the person that's #20 on the list has yet to smell diesel in the
morning...promised for over a year ago...hope they make it...
P
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston@popsound.com>
Just a quick note that I think applies - FYI... this is a section from
a discussion on the Subaru list -
> The wings are wide open. Lower wing skins are not bonded on yet. I can
> run any size return line. Why float type?What's so special about that?
> The fuel pick up lines are in. They should stay. They are 3/8 in size.
> I hope I don't sound like an idiot.
> Gary
Hi Gary,
The capacitance fuel level senders require re-calibration for each type
of fuel you use. So, if you use mogas most of the time, but from time
to time need to put in 100LL, then the fuel level will not read
correctly. The very simple float senders don't have this problem.
Another alternative to the fuel return lines is to install
a header tank. From what I've read on the net, this seems
to be a popular option.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric Panning
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
--> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning
<ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
ECi Titan IO-540 kit engine (~ 2007?) is supposed to
be autofuel capable. This is partly because they are
using a fuel spider with fixed orifice and not a fuel
servo with some autogas sensitive components. Still
they rec 100LL initial for valves. Note this system
requires a return fuel line. I have built these
fittings into my tanks just in case. Part of reason
for return line is to return any vapor to tank.
Autogas and ethanol autogas in particular has lower
vapor pressure. Ethanol is also a good solvent for
lots of things....
Deltahawk claims they sold out 2005 and 2006
production runs but I have never seen a builder site
which makes me wonder if they really have that many
out there. I saw one article that 2005 run was only
two engines.
A number of builders are looking at rotary engines as
well.
Eric
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV Assembly Workshop |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
I took the EAA course before starting the building process. What I liked was
learning what not to do and talking to other builders.
I went in knowing next to nothing and came out knowing enough to be dangerous.
Seriously, you will learn stuff if you keep your eyes and ears open. As for the
value per dollar... I felt I got my money worth. Not everyone has the luxury of
having a technical advisor at their beck and call.
Those that say they didn't learn a thing - probably didn't because they must
already know everything already. Flame away!
Jay
Do not archive
>
> As a prospective RV-10 builder, I have a question of this group: Have
> any of you taken the EAA Sportair Workshop on RV Assembly, and if so,
> how helpful was it? I've built an airplane before, but have not done a
> lot of sheetmetal work, and my wife has only bucked a handful of
rivets.
> I can teach her, but wondered if this group recommends the workshops or
> to just dive in and get started.
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'm going rotary, should be able to burn 87 with out a problem, I did build
in a return to left main tank and have begun the overhaul process. Total
overhaul should cost me less than 1600 and that is everything.
Bob K
Finish kit and engine
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:41 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
Yep
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:10 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
Isn't this the Bombardier engine before they split off?
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
Do Not Archive
Recent RV-10 Build Activity
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:51 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
--> <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
We need to show these guys how big the homebuilt market is. They've been
ignoring it in favor of the OEMs . . .
http://www.vaircraftengine.com/
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=9f2a2c16-1451-479a-ad6
1-40eec3d4b353&Dynamic=1&Range=NOW&FromDate=04%2F24%2F2006&ToDate=04%2F2
7%2F2006&Category=%2Findex.cfm
TDT
40025
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez"
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Maybe time to start really considering something other than a Lycosaur!
JG, #409
Do not archive
>From: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
>Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:18:42 +0000
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>
>100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this
week.
>It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an
autogas
>STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on
autogas,
>saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
>
>Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540,
with
>those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87
octane:
>0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*,
-A1A5*,
>-A1B5*,
>-A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*,
>-D1A5*, -E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*,
>-H1A5D*,
-H2A5D*,
>-H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
>
>I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a
>carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of
greed,
>where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up a
dollar.
>
>Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
>
>-Dan Masys
>#40448
>
>
====================================
RV10-List Email Forum -
more:
bsp;
HREF="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?RV10-List
====================================
bsp; - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
bsp;
HREF="http://wiki.matronics.com">http://wiki.matronics.com
====================================
bsp; - List Contribution Web Site -
bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
HREF="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution
====================================
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Extra fuel tanks |
--> RV10-List message posted by: <gorejr@bellsouth.net>
What kind of speed and fuel burn do you get at these settings? Thanks Jim Gore
>
> From: LessDragProd@aol.com
> Date: 2006/04/26 Wed PM 09:17:48 EDT
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Extra fuel tanks
>
>
> How long did you want to sit?
> At full throttle at 2100 RPM and 60 gallons, you can sit for 4 1/2 hours and
> still have a half hour reserve.
>
> Jim Ayers
>
> In a message dated 04/26/2006 4:25:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> gorejr@bellsouth.net writes:
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: <gorejr@bellsouth.net>
>
> Is it possible to add the 15 gallon extra fuel with the quickbuild wing? I
> know alot of the fuel system is in place. Thanks!
> Jim Gore RV-10
> Griffin GA
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
This looks like another interesting option, but it seems that Eggenfellner
currently has the leg up on "V" with all the users and the engine mount and
cowl aready figured out.
Who is manufacturing the "V" engine itself?
The huge company behind the Subaru engines and all their technology in the
auto industry, plus all the money they have in R+D make it seem like a
better bet.
One concern of both of these is their reduction drives and the pulse forces
placed on them according to their future competion, Wolf Aerospace.
But glad to see that the momentum is gathering which will ensure more
choices for us all.
JG. 409
Do Not Archive
>From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@avidyne.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
>Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:51:00 -0400
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
><Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
>
>We need to show these guys how big the homebuilt market is. They've
>been ignoring it in favor of the OEMs . . .
>
>http://www.vaircraftengine.com/
>
>http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=9f2a2c16-1451-479a-ad6
>1-40eec3d4b353&Dynamic=1&Range=NOW&FromDate=04%2F24%2F2006&ToDate=04%2F2
>7%2F2006&Category=%2Findex.cfm
>
> TDT
>40025
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
>Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:44 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez"
><indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
>
>Maybe time to start really considering something other than a Lycosaur!
>
>JG, #409
>
>Do not archive
>
>
> >From: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
> >To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
> >Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:18:42 +0000
> >
> >--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
> >
> >100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this
>week.
> >It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an
>autogas
> >STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on
>autogas,
> >saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
> >
> >Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540,
>with
> >those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87
>octane:
> >0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*,
>-A1A5*,
> >-A1B5*,
> >-A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*,
> >-D1A5*,
> >-E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*, -H1A5D*,
>-H2A5D*,
> >-H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
> >
> >I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a
> >carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of
>greed,
> >where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up a
>dollar.
> >
> >Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
> >
> >-Dan Masys
> >#40448
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 45
| 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 |
|
A question for Ray Doerr, would you buy another auto engine conversion
(eg Eggenfelner)?
>From someone who has been there, I am sure the list would value your
opinion.
cheers,
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Friday, 28 April 2006 10:50 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez"
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
This looks like another interesting option, but it seems that
Eggenfellner
currently has the leg up on "V" with all the users and the engine mount
and
cowl aready figured out.
Who is manufacturing the "V" engine itself?
The huge company behind the Subaru engines and all their technology in
the
auto industry, plus all the money they have in R+D make it seem like a
better bet.
One concern of both of these is their reduction drives and the pulse
forces
placed on them according to their future competion, Wolf Aerospace.
But glad to see that the momentum is gathering which will ensure more
choices for us all.
JG. 409
Do Not Archive
>From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@avidyne.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
>Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:51:00 -0400
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
><Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
>
>We need to show these guys how big the homebuilt market is. They've
>been ignoring it in favor of the OEMs . . .
>
>http://www.vaircraftengine.com/
>
>http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=3D9f2a2c16-1451-479a-a=
d6
>1-40eec3d4b353&Dynamic=3D1&Range=3DNOW&FromDate=3D04%2F24%2F2006&ToDate=3D=
04%2F2
>7%2F2006&Category=3D%2Findex.cfm
>
> TDT
>40025
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Gonzalez
>Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:44 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez"
><indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
>
>Maybe time to start really considering something other than a Lycosaur!
>
>JG, #409
>
>Do not archive
>
>
> >From: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
> >To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
> >Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:18:42 +0000
> >
> >--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
> >
> >100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this
>week.
> >It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an
>autogas
> >STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on
>autogas,
> >saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
> >
> >Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540,
>with
> >those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87
>octane:
> >0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*,
>-A1A5*,
> >-A1B5*,
> >-A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*,
> >-D1A5*,
> >-E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*, -H1A5D*,
>-H2A5D*,
> >-H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
> >
> >I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to
a
> >carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of
>greed,
> >where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up a
>dollar.
> >
> >Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
> >
> >-Dan Masys
> >#40448
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
=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
=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 46
| 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: Autogas for 540 (IO-540) |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Lewis <Tim_Lewis@msm.umr.edu>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
>
> I've never owned a plane with an auto-gas STC. How do you refuel the
> plane? I wouldn't image the wings would fit under the canopy of an
> Exxon station.
I use 93 octane in my RV-6A (O-360, 8.5/1 compression). I use one tank
for avgas only, the other for auto gas and/or avgas. To fuel at the
airport I use five gallon metal fuel cans with the spring loaded "safety
nozzle." Manassas airport requires these nozzles for those of us who
fuel our plans from fuel cans. Grounding wires and conductive funnels
are also required at Manassas.
I've been able to force the RV-6A to vapor lock on autogas, but it
hasn't been a problem unless I set out to overheat the fuel (hot day,
fly hard, land hot, long taxi, then try immediate takeoff). I have had
the autogas ice up on me twice during winter flights. I think it
happened because I had a Fram G3 paper fuel filter between the fuel tank
and the fuel selector. I've spoken to a couple of experts in the field,
who tell me the paper filters are susceptible to freezing if there's any
water in the fuel. I'm replacing the Fram G3s with the Purolator Pro
806, which uses a nylon filter.
IO-540 and auto gas: I spent quite a while talking to Dan from Airflow
Performance (the folks who make the fuel pump that Van sells for IO-540
powered RV-10s) about autogas in the Bendix injection system. Dan used
to be Bendix's project engineer on the Bendix RS and RSA fuel injection
systems (that's the one on the IO-540). Don told me there's no
materials compatability problem with using auto gas in the Bendix
system, but you don't want to leave autogas sitting in the servo for a
long time because when auto gas evaporates it'll leave "varnish"
deposits. Dan said many people use auto gas in the Bendix injected
engines, but he pointed out that vapor lock is a concern when using auto
gas in an injected engine.
I talked to Mr Petersen of the famous Petersen STC about injected
engines and auto gas. He told me he'd never been able to get an
injected installation to pass all the vapor lock tests, thus the lack of
any Petersen STCs for the IO-XXX engines.
I plan to try auto gas in my RV-10 (IO-540). To try to head off vapor
lock issues I'll have no gascolator, fire sleeved fuel lines with lines
kept as short as possible, and probably blast cooling of the engine
driven fuel pump. And careful flight testing over an airport with one
tank full of good old av ga$.
Tim
--
Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
RV-6A N47TD -- 830 hrs
RV-10 #40059 under construction
Conti, Rick wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
>
> I've never owned a plane with an auto-gas STC. How do you refuel the
> plane? I wouldn't image the wings would fit under the canopy of an
> Exxon station.
>
> Thank You
> Rick Conti
> Senior Engineering Manager
> The Boeing Company
> office: 703 - 414 - 6141
> blackberry: 571 - 215 - 6134
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Newman [mailto:rnewman@lutron.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:32 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Newman" <rnewman@lutron.com>
>
> Part of my plan is flexibility in choices, I'm using an O-540-E4B5 in
> RV-10.
>
> -Bob Newman
>
>
>
>
>>>>dmasys@cox.net 4/27/2006 12:18:42 PM >>>
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
>
> 100LL hit a psychological threshhold at my home airport (JWN) this
> week. It is now at $5 per gallon. This got me thinking again about an
> autogas STC. Had one for my C-182 and flew it happily for 1100 hours on
> autogas, saving more than $10K at 13.5 gal/hr over five years.
>
> Petersen lists autogas STCs for the following variants of the O-540,
> with those having an asterisk needing 91 octane and all others ok on 87
> octane:
> 0-540-B1A5, -B1B5, -B1D5, -B2A5, -B2B5, -B2C5, -B4A5, -B4B5, -A1A*,
> -A1A5*, -A1B5*,
> -A1C5*, -A1D*, -A1D5*, -A2B*, -A3D5*, -A4A5*, -A4B5*, -A4C5*, -A4D5*,
> -D1A5*,
> -E4A5*, -E4B5*, -E4C5*, -G1A5*, -G2A5*, -H1A5*, -H2A5*, -H1A5D*,
> -H2A5D*, -H1B5D*, -H2B5D* -F1B5*
>
> I was going to go with an IO-540 but it might be worth going back to a
> carburator to have a plane that is not hostage to the economics of
> greed, where every time autogas goes up 20 cents a gallon, avgas goes up
> a dollar.
>
> Anyone else planning to run autogas in their Lycosaur?
>
> -Dan Masys
> #40448
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 47
| 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: Autogas for 540 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Umm, err, how do I put this? 100LL is 7.0 RVP. Most summer mogas is
7.6-9.0 RVP. Adding ethanol raises the RVP about 1 point. The higher the
RVP the more hazard of vapor lock. That means mogas with ethanol has a
higher vapor pressure.
Even if you engine is fine with the fuel, how are you going to keep it
in the wet wing tanks after it softens the PRC? Are you going to want to
reseal those tanks every few years?
Eric Panning wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning <ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
>
> ECi Titan IO-540 kit engine (~ 2007?) is supposed to
> be autofuel capable. This is partly because they are
> using a fuel spider with fixed orifice and not a fuel
> servo with some autogas sensitive components. Still
> they rec 100LL initial for valves. Note this system
> requires a return fuel line. I have built these
> fittings into my tanks just in case. Part of reason
> for return line is to return any vapor to tank.
> Autogas and ethanol autogas in particular has lower
> vapor pressure. Ethanol is also a good solvent for
> lots of things....
>
> Deltahawk claims they sold out 2005 and 2006
> production runs but I have never seen a builder site
> which makes me wonder if they really have that many
> out there. I saw one article that 2005 run was only
> two engines.
>
> A number of builders are looking at rotary engines as
> well.
>
> Eric
>
>
Message 48
| 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: Extra fuel tanks |
Hi Jim,
Just differential numbers for now, since my customers RV-10 doesn't have all
of the fairing on and it isn't painted yet.
This numbers were obtained at 8,000' density altitude at full throttle.
2500 RPM 20 gph
2300 RPM 15 gph +1 knot faster than 2500 RPM
2100 RPM 12 gph -6 knots slower than 2500 RPM
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 04/27/2006 6:15:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
gorejr@bellsouth.net writes:
--> RV10-List message posted by: <gorejr@bellsouth.net>
What kind of speed and fuel burn do you get at these settings? Thanks Jim
Gore
Message 49
| 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: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Excellent presentation on the clear risk of Mogas rather than Avgas. It
took me two years of school to learn the narrow perspective of why it
carries risks. Here is a dissertation from the Lancair group today on
the same logic.
"Scott,
That output for the motorcycle is really not very "exciting" compared
to an aircraft engine. Correct it out for RPM and the Hp/cubic inch
is around .51.
If you take away the liquid cooling, and run the heads at 380dF
rather than 240dF, the octane requirement would increase
substantially.
George
"""
Hmmmmm.... My Honda VTX motorcycle, 110 ci (55 ci/cyl) comes close to
my
320 (80 ci/cyl). It uses a 9:1 compression ratio, 4" bore x 4.4"
stroke, 3 valves, 3d mapped fuel injection (MAP, OAT, RPM, etc.) thru
12-hole electronic injectors, 2 plugs/cyl, EI, liquid cooled (uh, well
that's quite different), etc. This engine produces 95 HP and 115
ft/lb
at the rear wheel thru a less than efficient a drive shaft at about
4500-5000 rpm. It requires 86 octane auto gas."
The above discussion was between George Braly of GAMI and a well known
Lancair driver. Comparison was the shallow logic of a water-cooled
motorcycle engine being similar to a six banger aircraft engine and the
consequence with an air-cooled engine.
The Reid Vapor Pressure index and the official position by Continental
against Mogas in aviation has been clearly documented. Price of gas
seems to bring out foolish discussion on a periodic basis. When an auto
engine fails, you just pullover. I can find the supporting documents for
the foolishness of the STC if needed.
John Cox - $00.02
Do not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Umm, err, how do I put this? 100LL is 7.0 RVP. Most summer mogas is
7.6-9.0 RVP. Adding ethanol raises the RVP about 1 point. The higher the
RVP the more hazard of vapor lock. That means mogas with ethanol has a
higher vapor pressure.
Even if you engine is fine with the fuel, how are you going to keep it
in the wet wing tanks after it softens the PRC? Are you going to want to
reseal those tanks every few years?
Eric Panning wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning
<ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
>
> ECi Titan IO-540 kit engine (~ 2007?) is supposed to
> be autofuel capable. This is partly because they are
> using a fuel spider with fixed orifice and not a fuel
> servo with some autogas sensitive components. Still
> they rec 100LL initial for valves. Note this system
> requires a return fuel line. I have built these
> fittings into my tanks just in case. Part of reason
> for return line is to return any vapor to tank.
> Autogas and ethanol autogas in particular has lower
> vapor pressure. Ethanol is also a good solvent for
> lots of things....
>
> Deltahawk claims they sold out 2005 and 2006
> production runs but I have never seen a builder site
> which makes me wonder if they really have that many
> out there. I saw one article that 2005 run was only
> two engines.
>
> A number of builders are looking at rotary engines as
> well.
>
> Eric
>
>
Message 50
| 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: | Extra fuel tanks |
Jim, lets here the airspeed and MP at 8,000 DA, 2500 RPM, 20 gph, 3
blade MT and a Lyco at 260hp. My version was missing your answer to Jim
Gore's request for SPEED data.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LessDragProd@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Extra fuel tanks
Hi Jim,
Just differential numbers for now, since my customers RV-10 doesn't have
all of the fairing on and it isn't painted yet.
This numbers were obtained at 8,000' density altitude at full throttle.
2500 RPM 20 gph
2300 RPM 15 gph +1 knot faster than 2500 RPM
2100 RPM 12 gph -6 knots slower than 2500 RPM
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 04/27/2006 6:15:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
gorejr@bellsouth.net writes:
--> RV10-List message posted by: <gorejr@bellsouth.net>
=09
What kind of speed and fuel burn do you get at these settings?
Thanks Jim Gore
Message 51
| 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: RV Assembly Workshop |
--> RV10-List message posted by: David Maib <dmaib@mac.com>
My wife and I just got back from Eugene, OR where we spent ten days
with Wally Anderson and his folks at Synergy Air. We took the
Fundamentals of Building class and then the empennage building class.
Neither of us had any skills or knowledge about building an airplane.
I have been active in maintaining a Bonanza I own with a mechanic
partner for a few years, but that is about it. We left with the tail
kit completed and a good amount of basic knowledge and confidence
that we will be able to complete the RV-10 QB.
Wally and his crew are great and the trip was well worth the time and
money.
David and Mary Maib
On Apr 27, 2006, at 5:32 PM, Jay Brinkmeyer wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer
> <jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
>
> I took the EAA course before starting the building process. What I
> liked was
> learning what not to do and talking to other builders.
>
> I went in knowing next to nothing and came out knowing enough to be
> dangerous.
> Seriously, you will learn stuff if you keep your eyes and ears
> open. As for the
> value per dollar... I felt I got my money worth. Not everyone has
> the luxury of
> having a technical advisor at their beck and call.
>
> Those that say they didn't learn a thing - probably didn't because
> they must
> already know everything already. Flame away!
>
> Jay
>
> Do not archive
>>
>> As a prospective RV-10 builder, I have a question of this group:
>> Have
>> any of you taken the EAA Sportair Workshop on RV Assembly, and if so,
>> how helpful was it? I've built an airplane before, but have not
>> done a
>> lot of sheetmetal work, and my wife has only bucked a handful of
> rivets.
>> I can teach her, but wondered if this group recommends the
>> workshops or
>> to just dive in and get started.
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
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! --
|