Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:15 AM - Re: Autogas for 540 (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
2. 04:38 AM - Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear (Rob Kermanj)
3. 05:09 AM - Re: Autogas for 540 (Doerr, Ray R [NTK])
4. 06:11 AM - Auto engine conversion (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
5. 07:00 AM - Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear (JSMcGrew@aol.com)
6. 07:21 AM - Re: Re: RV Assembly Workshop (John Jessen)
7. 07:22 AM - Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear (Tim Olson)
8. 07:22 AM - Re: Fuselage width on Gear dimension (Chris)
9. 07:39 AM - Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear (Conti, Rick)
10. 07:56 AM - Re: Re: RV Assembly Workshop (James Hein)
11. 07:56 AM - Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear (John Jessen)
12. 08:02 AM - Re: Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear ()
13. 08:12 AM - Re: Extra fuel tanks (LessDragProd@aol.com)
14. 08:30 AM - .311 Drill bit part number (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
15. 08:30 AM - Re: 540 power settings (LessDragProd@aol.com)
16. 08:37 AM - Re: Extra fuel tanks (Tim Olson)
17. 08:39 AM - Re: Auto engine conversion (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
18. 08:45 AM - Re: Props (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
19. 08:50 AM - Re: Autogas for 540 (Gary Specketer)
20. 08:57 AM - Re: Autogas for 540 - autogas vapor pressure (Eric Panning)
21. 09:10 AM - Re: Re: RV Assembly Workshop (LIKE2LOOP@aol.com)
22. 09:17 AM - Re: .311 Drill bit part number ()
23. 09:30 AM - Nose Wheel Valve (Jesse Saint)
24. 09:30 AM - Re: Re: RV Assembly Workshop (James Hein)
25. 09:55 AM - Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear (Tim Olson)
26. 10:11 AM - Re: Nose Wheel Valve (Tim Olson)
27. 11:27 AM - Re: Auto engine conversion (steveadams)
28. 11:51 AM - James Cowl (Chris Johnston)
29. 11:52 AM - Re: .311 Drill bit part number (David McNeill)
30. 11:58 AM - Re: Re: Auto engine conversion (John Jessen)
31. 12:05 PM - Re: Nose Wheel Valve (Jesse Saint)
32. 12:05 PM - Re: Re: Auto engine conversion (Jesse Saint)
33. 12:16 PM - ASC and Close Tolerance Bolts (Conti, Rick)
34. 12:48 PM - Close Tolerance Bolts (Conti, Rick)
35. 01:13 PM - Re: Auto engine conversion (David Hertner)
36. 01:33 PM - Re: Auto engine conversion with good links for Lycoming operation (Eric Panning)
37. 01:39 PM - Re: Re: Auto engine conversion (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
38. 02:17 PM - Andair 20X7T fuel selector extension (Jay Brinkmeyer)
39. 02:31 PM - Re: Auto engine conversion with good links for Lycoming operation (Dan Masys)
40. 02:34 PM - New fuel valve handle (Jay Brinkmeyer)
41. 03:10 PM - Re: RV handling (Dan Masys)
42. 03:46 PM - Re: Extra fuel tanks (John W. Cox)
43. 03:48 PM - Re: Extra fuel tanks (John W. Cox)
44. 03:57 PM - Re: Auto engine conversion with good links for Lycoming operation (Eric Panning)
45. 03:57 PM - Re: Auto engine conversion (John W. Cox)
46. 05:13 PM - Re: Andair 20X7T fuel selector extension (Neal George)
47. 05:15 PM - Re: Performance Spec - Was: Extra fuel tanks (Tim Olson)
48. 06:05 PM - Re: Props (Paul Walter)
49. 06:10 PM - Re: Andair 20X7T fuel selector extension (N777TY)
50. 06:42 PM - cowling alignment (Richard Sipp)
51. 07:14 PM - Paint Guns (Marcus Cooper)
52. 07:36 PM - Re: Re: Andair 20X7T fuel selector extension (Tim Olson)
53. 07:36 PM - Re: cowling alignment (Tim Olson)
54. 07:39 PM - Re: Auto engine conversion (David Hertner)
55. 07:50 PM - Re: Re: Auto engine conversion (Kelly McMullen)
56. 07:59 PM - Re: Andair 20X7T fuel selector extension (Robert G. Wright)
57. 08:14 PM - Re: RV10-List :Fuel Economy (Richard Sipp)
58. 08:31 PM - Re: cowling alignment (David McNeill)
59. 08:41 PM - Re: Extra fuel tanks (LessDragProd@aol.com)
60. 08:47 PM - AF-3500 (Robert G. Wright)
61. 08:55 PM - Re: Props (LessDragProd@aol.com)
62. 09:58 PM - Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear (JSMcGrew@aol.com)
63. 10:33 PM - Re: Paint Guns (John W. Cox)
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 |
|
Well, the V aircraft engines are going to be certified aircraft engines.
I don't know exactly who owns who at this point, but the V aircraft
engines were developed by Bombardier, a company that knows plenty about
engines (Rotax).
But the V engine guys (I forget the new name) are aiming at the OEM
market first, so homebuilder will have to wait a while longer. Plus
they never discuss price . . . !
A while back I also talked to the guys distributing the SMA diesel
engine in the US. They have an STC for C-182s. They also were not
really interested in homebuilders. They did mention a price - for the
C-182 is was something like $50,000 for the engine and a total of about
$75,000 or so as a package with new cowl and I think a new prop.
TDT
40025
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of John Gonzalez
Sent: Thu 4/27/2006 9:20 PM
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 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: | Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Rob Kermanj" <flysrv10@gmail.com>
You can use a rechargable drill with the reamer. Oil the bit well. I
did not have to drill before the reamer. In fact, I found it hard to
have space to drill anything from the top side.
The reamers blades have a step to transition to the shank. Since I
used the reamer backward, I had to grind a slope to be able to pull
the reamer from the bottom of the hole through the top.
Find this reamer and if you want, call me and I will walk you through.
do not archive.
772-460-3907
Rob Kermanj
On 4/27/06, Conti, Rick <rick.conti@boeing.com> wrote:
> --> 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
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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 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 |
|
No I would not buy another auto conversion. I am an engineer and I
don't like what I've seen in terms of engineering for these firewall
forward packages. It is more like engineering by trial and error and
unfortunately I had to be the guy that found an error. That being said,
I do think the Subaru is a great engine, but currently the displacement
isn't large enough for these engines to be running at 2700 RPM with no
gear reduction drive. Now is Subaru came out with a boxer 8 cylinder in
the 5.0 liter range with dual plugs/ignition and dual built in
alternators for them, a very small gear reduction drive that would maybe
run the engine at 3,500 RPM with prop at 2700 would give a hassle free
2000+ hour TBO. Some of the things I've found that were not addresses
very well were Fuel delivery, location of the pumps (cabin, engine side
of firewall, in the tank etc), air flow for oil and water coolers.
Some of the other factors I've considered this time round is
to ensure that everyone in the aviation industry can put a price on the
components that make up my plane. Example: The engine even as a core
as a define value, the Garmin components in the panel, the airframe,
prop etc. This way if I every needed to sell it/part it out for any
reason, I could get a fair price for the individual piece.
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 McGANN, Ron
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:53 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
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=
d
6
>1-40eec3d4b353&Dynamic=3D1&Range=3DNOW&FromDate=3D04%2F24%2F2006&ToDate=3D=
04%2F
2
>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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
browse Subscriptions page, Chat, FAQ,
HREF=3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic=
s
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Wiki!
HREF=3D"http://wiki.matronics.com">http://wiki.matronics.com
support!
HREF=3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c=
o
ntribution
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: | Auto engine conversion |
I spent a considerable amount of time looking into auto conversions
with Eggs being the most promising. I really did not want to put an old
Lycosaur into my -10. However I was unable to find any solid data to
support some of the claims being made and he seems to be constantly 6
months or longer behind his scheduled delivery dates. Even some of his
staunchest supporters privately told me they wouldn't use his new engine
in something like a -10 until it is proven over the next two years. The
new redrive, high operating RPM's, and past history of Egg claiming HP
numbers that were shown to be wrong really put me off eventually. Also,
when I pushed the issue around constantly changing HP numbers I was
banned from his group. Nice! It basically came down to a trust issue
with me, I think Egg is probably genuine in his resolve that the engine
can do what it says but I want real numbers on paper and Egg just would
not do it. With myself and 3 other souls on board I could not in good
conscious select an unproven engine with NO real world data. By going
with Barrett I will pay more in fuel but I have 100% confidence in his
reputation and his ability to deliver what he says. Also having it run
on the dyno helps ;-).
Now I know there are several -10 builders going with the Subie and I
honestly wish them all the best and really hope the engine meets it's
computed numbers (he does not dyno any engines) as this would be an
excellent alternative to the engines we usually use. I still think that
it would be an excellent engine for any of the 2 seat RV's. Not flaming
Egg, just stating my opinions along with some facts.
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
Do Not Archive
Recent RV-10 Build Activity
<http://www.mykitlog.com/display_project.php?project_id=3D22>
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doerr, Ray R
[NTK]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 7:09 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
No I would not buy another auto conversion. I am an engineer and I
don't like what I've seen in terms of engineering for these firewall
forward packages. It is more like engineering by trial and error and
unfortunately I had to be the guy that found an error. That being said,
I do think the Subaru is a great engine, but currently the displacement
isn't large enough for these engines to be running at 2700 RPM with no
gear reduction drive. Now is Subaru came out with a boxer 8 cylinder in
the 5.0 liter range with dual plugs/ignition and dual built in
alternators for them, a very small gear reduction drive that would maybe
run the engine at 3,500 RPM with prop at 2700 would give a hassle free
2000+ hour TBO. Some of the things I've found that were not addresses
very well were Fuel delivery, location of the pumps (cabin, engine side
of firewall, in the tank etc), air flow for oil and water coolers.
Some of the other factors I've considered this time round is
to ensure that everyone in the aviation industry can put a price on the
components that make up my plane. Example: The engine even as a core
as a define value, the Garmin components in the panel, the airframe,
prop etc. This way if I every needed to sell it/part it out for any
reason, I could get a fair price for the individual piece.
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 McGANN, Ron
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:53 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
browse Subscriptions page, Chat, FAQ,
HREF=3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic=
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Wiki!
HREF=3D"http://wiki.matronics.com">http://wiki.matronics.com
support!
HREF=3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c=
ontribution
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: | Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear |
For those of you that haven't gotten to drilling the landing gear mount yet,
I just wanted to put in my 2 cents as well. Please, don't take this the
wrong way, it's just another way to solve the same problem: I followed Van's
instructions exactly and used a .311 / 7.9 mm drill to mount the landing gear.
It
was easy, I didn't have any problems, and the bolts fit great. I bought the
drill from McMaster-Carr for $8.63 including shipping.
Jim
40134
In a message dated 4/28/2006 5:39:04 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
flysrv10@gmail.com writes:
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Rob Kermanj" <flysrv10@gmail.com>
You can use a rechargable drill with the reamer. Oil the bit well. I
did not have to drill before the reamer. In fact, I found it hard to
have space to drill anything from the top side.
The reamers blades have a step to transition to the shank. Since I
used the reamer backward, I had to grind a slope to be able to pull
the reamer from the bottom of the hole through the top.
Find this reamer and if you want, call me and I will walk you through.
do not archive.
772-460-3907
Rob Kermanj
On 4/27/06, Conti, Rick <rick.conti@boeing.com> wrote:
> --> 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
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Jim "Scooter" McGrew
jsmcgrew@aol.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: RV Assembly Workshop |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
You built the tail in 10 days! All the way through the Tailcone? Yeow!
John Jessen
~328 (speechless)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Maib
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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.
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Ouch, I hope we haven't reached the point where we have to say
"please don't take this the wrong way" to tell people
how you drilled something. Jim, you're doing just great by
taking the time to find the right bit. Thanks for completing
it by posting a source and price too! Keep up the good posting,
and everyone.....always feel free to share your opinions. Sure,
sometimes they'll vary, but yours is just as valuable as
anyone else's. Even if someone's opinion was way backwards,
at least it can bring out the multitude of opposite responses
that can cause people to think. I've had people ask me why
I did something....then say "I never thought about that" when
I gave the explanation. That's the whole point of the list...
getting people to ask a question, and then find all the creative
ways to solve it...and pick the one that either has the proven
track record, or sometimes the innovative idea....your choice.
If it weren't for all of YOUR brains, I'd have wracked mine
even worse and probably never ended up with an airplane that
I like so much.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
JSMcGrew@aol.com wrote:
> For those of you that haven't gotten to drilling the landing gear mount
> yet, I just wanted to put in my 2 cents as well. Please, don't take this
> the wrong way, it's just another way to solve the same problem: I
> followed Van's instructions exactly and used a .311 / 7.9 mm drill to
> mount the landing gear. It was easy, I didn't have any problems, and the
> bolts fit great. I bought the drill from McMaster-Carr for $8.63
> including shipping.
>
> Jim
> 40134
>
> In a message dated 4/28/2006 5:39:04 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
> flysrv10@gmail.com writes:
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rob Kermanj" <flysrv10@gmail.com>
>
> You can use a rechargable drill with the reamer. Oil the bit well. I
> did not have to drill before the reamer. In fact, I found it hard to
> have space to drill anything from the top side.
>
> The reamers blades have a step to transition to the shank. Since I
> used the reamer backward, I had to grind a slope to be able to pull
> the reamer from the bottom of the hole through the top.
>
> Find this reamer and if you want, call me and I will walk you through.
>
> do not archive.
> 772-460-3907
> Rob Kermanj
>
> On 4/27/06, Conti, Rick <rick.conti@boeing.com> wrote:
> > --> 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
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --> ================================================== -
> NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> - List Contribution Web Site
> ==================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim "Scooter" McGrew
> jsmcgrew@aol.com
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage width on Gear dimension |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Chris" <toaster73@earthlink.net>
One thing I have seen done is to soap up the floor where the wheels will
need to go through then you can slide the wheels side ways given the
slippery soap like Jesse suggests except you won't need the dollies. Just
don't get carried away with the soap and break your back! You can pack a
hanger tight with a bunch of planes doing this too. THen just wash the soap
away.
-Chris Lucas
#40072 (8 foot door)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Rosen" <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
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
Well said. I agree.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Thank You
Rick Conti
Senior Engineering Manager
The Boeing Company
office: 703 - 414 - 6141
blackberry: 571 - 215 - 6134
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Olson [mailto:Tim@MyRV10.com]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Ouch, I hope we haven't reached the point where we have to say
"please don't take this the wrong way" to tell people
how you drilled something. Jim, you're doing just great by
taking the time to find the right bit. Thanks for completing
it by posting a source and price too! Keep up the good posting,
and everyone.....always feel free to share your opinions. Sure,
sometimes they'll vary, but yours is just as valuable as
anyone else's. Even if someone's opinion was way backwards,
at least it can bring out the multitude of opposite responses
that can cause people to think. I've had people ask me why
I did something....then say "I never thought about that" when
I gave the explanation. That's the whole point of the list...
getting people to ask a question, and then find all the creative
ways to solve it...and pick the one that either has the proven
track record, or sometimes the innovative idea....your choice.
If it weren't for all of YOUR brains, I'd have wracked mine
even worse and probably never ended up with an airplane that
I like so much.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
JSMcGrew@aol.com wrote:
> For those of you that haven't gotten to drilling the landing gear
mount
> yet, I just wanted to put in my 2 cents as well. Please, don't take
this
> the wrong way, it's just another way to solve the same problem: I
> followed Van's instructions exactly and used a .311 / 7.9 mm drill to
> mount the landing gear. It was easy, I didn't have any problems, and
the
> bolts fit great. I bought the drill from McMaster-Carr for $8.63
> including shipping.
>
> Jim
> 40134
>
> In a message dated 4/28/2006 5:39:04 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
> flysrv10@gmail.com writes:
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rob Kermanj"
<flysrv10@gmail.com>
>
> You can use a rechargable drill with the reamer. Oil the bit
well. I
> did not have to drill before the reamer. In fact, I found it hard
to
> have space to drill anything from the top side.
>
> The reamers blades have a step to transition to the shank. Since
I
> used the reamer backward, I had to grind a slope to be able to
pull
> the reamer from the bottom of the hole through the top.
>
> Find this reamer and if you want, call me and I will walk you
through.
>
> do not archive.
> 772-460-3907
> Rob Kermanj
>
> On 4/27/06, Conti, Rick <rick.conti@boeing.com> wrote:
> > --> 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
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --> ==================================================
-
> NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> - List Contribution Web Site
> ==================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim "Scooter" McGrew
> jsmcgrew@aol.com
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: RV Assembly Workshop |
--> RV10-List message posted by: James Hein <n8vim@arrl.net>
I think we have the problem of having work, life and family get in the
way of what we want to do (build!)
Now, off to the dentist!
-Jim 40384, stalled on the Flaps (Ha!)
do not archive the preceeding tongue-in-cheek humor.
John Jessen wrote:
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
>
>You built the tail in 10 days! All the way through the Tailcone? Yeow!
>
>John Jessen
> ~328 (speechless)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Maib
>Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:35 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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.
>>>
>>>
>>__________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Tim, nice post, BUT....
Speaking of flying RV-10's and all us poor souls still deburring away, how
about you guys giving us some encouragement by writing about your beautiful
flying machines! Where did you go on your very first trip after you were
let out of the box? What does it handle like in different flying
conditions? What's the view like? Where have you found sight line
difficulties? How does it handle crosswind landings? How is your panel
working out (Tim does not need to answer this; he already has) and what
would you do differently? The list of topics is almost endless! Common!
Give us a breadcrumb or two..., please. I'm not going to be able to get to
OSH, so can't depend on the fireside chats.
John Jessen
~328 (and pictures, too, send pictures)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Ouch, I hope we haven't reached the point where we have to say "please don't
take this the wrong way" to tell people
how you drilled something. Jim, you're doing just great by
taking the time to find the right bit. Thanks for completing it by posting
a source and price too! Keep up the good posting, and everyone.....always
feel free to share your opinions. Sure, sometimes they'll vary, but yours
is just as valuable as anyone else's. Even if someone's opinion was way
backwards, at least it can bring out the multitude of opposite responses
that can cause people to think. I've had people ask me why
I did something....then say "I never thought about that" when I gave the
explanation. That's the whole point of the list...
getting people to ask a question, and then find all the creative ways to
solve it...and pick the one that either has the proven track record, or
sometimes the innovative idea....your choice.
If it weren't for all of YOUR brains, I'd have wracked mine even worse and
probably never ended up with an airplane that I like so much.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
JSMcGrew@aol.com wrote:
> For those of you that haven't gotten to drilling the landing gear
> mount yet, I just wanted to put in my 2 cents as well. Please, don't
> take this the wrong way, it's just another way to solve the same
> problem: I followed Van's instructions exactly and used a .311 / 7.9
> mm drill to mount the landing gear. It was easy, I didn't have any
> problems, and the bolts fit great. I bought the drill from
> McMaster-Carr for $8.63 including shipping.
>
> Jim
> 40134
>
> In a message dated 4/28/2006 5:39:04 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
> flysrv10@gmail.com writes:
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rob Kermanj"
> <flysrv10@gmail.com>
>
> You can use a rechargable drill with the reamer. Oil the bit well. I
> did not have to drill before the reamer. In fact, I found it hard to
> have space to drill anything from the top side.
>
> The reamers blades have a step to transition to the shank. Since I
> used the reamer backward, I had to grind a slope to be able to pull
> the reamer from the bottom of the hole through the top.
>
> Find this reamer and if you want, call me and I will walk you through.
>
> do not archive.
> 772-460-3907
> Rob Kermanj
>
> On 4/27/06, Conti, Rick <rick.conti@boeing.com> wrote:
> > --> 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
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --> ================================================== -
> NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> - List Contribution Web Site
> ==================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim "Scooter" McGrew
> jsmcgrew@aol.com
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear |
--> RV10-List message posted by: <gommone7@bellsouth.net>
Hi,can you post the par number for mc Master regarding the .311 drill bit.
Hugo
>
> From: JSMcGrew@aol.com
> Date: 2006/04/28 Fri AM 09:59:31 EDT
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
>
>
>
> For those of you that haven't gotten to drilling the landing gear mount yet,
> I just wanted to put in my 2 cents as well. Please, don't take this the
> wrong way, it's just another way to solve the same problem: I followed Van's
> instructions exactly and used a .311 / 7.9 mm drill to mount the landing gear.
It
> was easy, I didn't have any problems, and the bolts fit great. I bought the
> drill from McMaster-Carr for $8.63 including shipping.
>
> Jim
> 40134
>
> In a message dated 4/28/2006 5:39:04 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
> flysrv10@gmail.com writes:
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rob Kermanj" <flysrv10@gmail.com>
>
> You can use a rechargable drill with the reamer. Oil the bit well. I
> did not have to drill before the reamer. In fact, I found it hard to
> have space to drill anything from the top side.
>
> The reamers blades have a step to transition to the shank. Since I
> used the reamer backward, I had to grind a slope to be able to pull
> the reamer from the bottom of the hole through the top.
>
> Find this reamer and if you want, call me and I will walk you through.
>
> do not archive.
> 772-460-3907
> Rob Kermanj
>
> On 4/27/06, Conti, Rick <rick.conti@boeing.com> wrote:
> > --> 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
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim "Scooter" McGrew
> jsmcgrew@aol.com
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Extra fuel tanks |
Hi John,
The manifold pressure was 23".
Regarding airspeed.
IMHO, the ONLY way to get VALID comparison airspeed numbers between
propellers is to fly them on the same aircraft and engine WITH NO OTHER CHA=
NGES MADE.
I have offered to pay the expenses and provide the 3 blade MT Propeller for=20=
a Hartzell propeller equipped RV-10 to do the testing. I think it says a
GREAT deal that there have been NO TAKERS from RV-10's with the RV-10 Hartz=
ell
propeller.
What are you Hartzell drivers? CHICKEN?
With Best Regards,
Jim Ayers
PS Was that gauntlet to subtle?
In a message dated 04/27/2006 9:22:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
johnwcox@pacificnw.com writes:
Jim, lets here the airspeed and MP at 8,000 DA, 2500 RPM, 20 gph, 3 blade M=
T
and a Lyco at 260hp. My version was missing your answer to Jim Gore=E2=80=
=99s
request for SPEED data.
John Cox
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: | .311 Drill bit part number |
MC Part number is: 2958A126
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gommone7@bellsouth.net
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Re: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
--> RV10-List message posted by: <gommone7@bellsouth.net>
Hi,can you post the par number for mc Master regarding the .311 drill
bit.
Hugo
>
> From: JSMcGrew@aol.com
> Date: 2006/04/28 Fri AM 09:59:31 EDT
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
>
>
> For those of you that haven't gotten to drilling the landing gear
> mount yet, I just wanted to put in my 2 cents as well. Please, don't
> take this the wrong way, it's just another way to solve the same
> problem: I followed Van's instructions exactly and used a .311 / 7.9
> mm drill to mount the landing gear. It was easy, I didn't have any
> problems, and the bolts fit great. I bought the drill from
McMaster-Carr for $8.63 including shipping.
>
> Jim
> 40134
>
> In a message dated 4/28/2006 5:39:04 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
> flysrv10@gmail.com writes:
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rob Kermanj" <flysrv10@gmail.com>
>
> You can use a rechargable drill with the reamer. Oil the bit well.
> I did not have to drill before the reamer. In fact, I found it hard
> to have space to drill anything from the top side.
>
> The reamers blades have a step to transition to the shank. Since I
> used the reamer backward, I had to grind a slope to be able to pull
> the reamer from the bottom of the hole through the top.
>
> Find this reamer and if you want, call me and I will walk you
through.
>
> do not archive.
> 772-460-3907
> Rob Kermanj
>
> On 4/27/06, Conti, Rick <rick.conti@boeing.com> wrote:
> > --> 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
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Jim "Scooter" McGrew
> jsmcgrew@aol.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
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 540 power settings |
Hi All,
I received the following answer from MT Propeller engineering regarding the
question Dick Sipp asked.
"Hi Jim,
As I told you yesterday on the telephone our propeller has no limitations in
respect to rpm and MAP settings, like 28 inch and 2200 rpm. This problem is
only with aluminum propellers.
So, we have no limitations of our propeller operation except the engine
limitations from the engine manufacture still apply.
With best regards,
MT - Propeller Entwicklung GmbH
Martin Albrecht
Engineering"
So I hope this answers your question, Dick.
The engine is the limiting factor with the 3 blade MT Propeller.
For continuous operation; 1800 RPM at 25" mp to 2200 RPM at 29" mp.
Whereas the aluminum blade propeller is the limiting factor on the Lycoming
engine.
And you're right. It is a shame if the propeller manufacturer "placed more
restrictive limits on engine operation than does the engine manufacturer."
Unfortunately, it appears to be a Hartzell problem.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 04/20/2006 8:21:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rsipp@earthlink.net writes:
Jim:
Are the RPM limits you refer to in the second half of your message MT limits
for their propellers?
The Lycoming IO-540-D series charts from the engine operators manual provide
much broader RPM vs. manifold pressure limits.
Above 5500' there is no manifold pressure limitation for any RPM. Below
5500' manifold pressure limits are shown; as an example,
at 1800 RPM 24 inches of manifold pressure is the limitation. At sea level
and 2200 RPM the manifold pressure limit is 28.5", above 2200 RPM there is
no manifold pressure limit.
These charts show that the old wives tale of not operating "oversquare" is
mostly legend and not a problem as far as Lycoming is concerned.
While I am not suggesting that operating continuously at a limitation is
prudent, very efficient operation does occur at full throttle settings and
relatively low RPMs. An added benefit is smoother and quieter operation as well.
It would be a shame if MT placed more restrictive limits on engine operation
than does the engine manufacturer.
Dick Sipp
40065
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: Extra fuel tanks |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I think it says a GREAT DEAL too. Things like:
* Being happy with their prop
* Content to leave things as-is due to satisfaction
* Unwillingness to remove some nicely saftied critical prop bolts
for no reason.
* Waning interest in spending more money
I know people would love to see the numbers on an MT, but it would
take more than an offer of "allowing" me to fly one for free
and go through the pain in the butt to pull those bolts and
put on the new prop. My feeling is, when something is buttoned
up nicely, you don't increase reliability by pulling it apart
a couple more times. In addition, there are still some minor
things I'd like to complete, and once you're flying already,
it seems that most everything drops to the bottom of your
priority list.
But, hopefully someone will bite, as it would be nice to see
the numbers.
Maybe it should go the other way....offer a Hartzell to someone
flying an MT. It's a cheaper prop to ship, and to buy to
send them.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
LessDragProd@aol.com wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> The manifold pressure was 23".
>
> Regarding airspeed.
>
> IMHO, the ONLY way to get VALID comparison airspeed numbers between
> propellers is to fly them on the same aircraft and engine WITH NO
> OTHER CHANGES MADE.
>
> I have offered to pay the expenses and provide the 3 blade MT Propeller
> for a Hartzell propeller equipped RV-10 to do the testing. I think it
> says a GREAT deal that there have been NO TAKERS from RV-10's with the
> RV-10 Hartzell propeller.
>
> What are you Hartzell drivers? CHICKEN?
>
> With Best Regards,
> Jim Ayers
> PS Was that gauntlet to subtle?
>
> In a message dated 04/27/2006 9:22:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> johnwcox@pacificnw.com writes:
>
> 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 Gores request for SPEED data.
>
> John Cox
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Auto engine conversion |
Frapper says there's a guy in Ontario building a RV-10 with Corvette
power . . .
Is he on the list? Speak up!
TDT
40025
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: Friday, April 28, 2006 9:11 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Auto engine conversion
I spent a considerable amount of time looking into auto conversions
with Eggs being the most promising. I really did not want to put an old
Lycosaur into my -10. However I was unable to find any solid data to
support some of the claims being made and he seems to be constantly 6
months or longer behind his scheduled delivery dates. Even some of his
staunchest supporters privately told me they wouldn't use his new engine
in something like a -10 until it is proven over the next two years. The
new redrive, high operating RPM's, and past history of Egg claiming HP
numbers that were shown to be wrong really put me off eventually. Also,
when I pushed the issue around constantly changing HP numbers I was
banned from his group. Nice! It basically came down to a trust issue
with me, I think Egg is probably genuine in his resolve that the engine
can do what it says but I want real numbers on paper and Egg just would
not do it. With myself and 3 other souls on board I could not in good
conscious select an unproven engine with NO real world data. By going
with Barrett I will pay more in fuel but I have 100% confidence in his
reputation and his ability to deliver what he says. Also having it run
on the dyno helps ;-).
Now I know there are several -10 builders going with the Subie and I
honestly wish them all the best and really hope the engine meets it's
computed numbers (he does not dyno any engines) as this would be an
excellent alternative to the engines we usually use. I still think that
it would be an excellent engine for any of the 2 seat RV's. Not flaming
Egg, just stating my opinions along with some facts.
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
Do Not Archive
Recent RV-10 Build Activity
<http://www.mykitlog.com/display_project.php?project_id=3D22>
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doerr, Ray R
[NTK]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 7:09 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
No I would not buy another auto conversion. I am an engineer and I
don't like what I've seen in terms of engineering for these firewall
forward packages. It is more like engineering by trial and error and
unfortunately I had to be the guy that found an error. That being said,
I do think the Subaru is a great engine, but currently the displacement
isn't large enough for these engines to be running at 2700 RPM with no
gear reduction drive. Now is Subaru came out with a boxer 8 cylinder in
the 5.0 liter range with dual plugs/ignition and dual built in
alternators for them, a very small gear reduction drive that would maybe
run the engine at 3,500 RPM with prop at 2700 would give a hassle free
2000+ hour TBO. Some of the things I've found that were not addresses
very well were Fuel delivery, location of the pumps (cabin, engine side
of firewall, in the tank etc), air flow for oil and water coolers.
Some of the other factors I've considered this time round is
to ensure that everyone in the aviation industry can put a price on the
components that make up my plane. Example: The engine even as a core
as a define value, the Garmin components in the panel, the airframe,
prop etc. This way if I every needed to sell it/part it out for any
reason, I could get a fair price for the individual piece.
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 McGANN, Ron
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:53 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
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=
d
6
>1-40eec3d4b353&Dynamic=3D1&Range=3DNOW&FromDate=3D04%2F24%2F2006&ToDate=3D=
04%2F
2
>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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
browse Subscriptions page, Chat, FAQ,
HREF=3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic=
s
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Wiki!
HREF=3D"http://wiki.matronics.com">http://wiki.matronics.com
support!
HREF=3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c=
o
ntribution
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
Down boy! : )
Hey, doesn't Van's sell the MT prop, now, too? Why don't we talk Van's
into doing a comparison between the props on one of the factory planes?
Makes sense to me . . .
TDT
40025
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Extra fuel tanks
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I think it says a GREAT DEAL too. Things like:
* Being happy with their prop
* Content to leave things as-is due to satisfaction
* Unwillingness to remove some nicely saftied critical prop bolts
for no reason.
* Waning interest in spending more money
I know people would love to see the numbers on an MT, but it would
take more than an offer of "allowing" me to fly one for free
and go through the pain in the butt to pull those bolts and
put on the new prop. My feeling is, when something is buttoned
up nicely, you don't increase reliability by pulling it apart
a couple more times. In addition, there are still some minor
things I'd like to complete, and once you're flying already,
it seems that most everything drops to the bottom of your
priority list.
But, hopefully someone will bite, as it would be nice to see
the numbers.
Maybe it should go the other way....offer a Hartzell to someone
flying an MT. It's a cheaper prop to ship, and to buy to
send them.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
LessDragProd@aol.com wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> The manifold pressure was 23".
>
> Regarding airspeed.
>
> IMHO, the ONLY way to get VALID comparison airspeed numbers between
> propellers is to fly them on the same aircraft and engine WITH NO
> OTHER CHANGES MADE.
>
> I have offered to pay the expenses and provide the 3 blade MT
Propeller
> for a Hartzell propeller equipped RV-10 to do the testing. I think it
> says a GREAT deal that there have been NO TAKERS from RV-10's with the
> RV-10 Hartzell propeller.
>
> What are you Hartzell drivers? CHICKEN?
>
> With Best Regards,
> Jim Ayers
> PS Was that gauntlet to subtle?
>
> In a message dated 04/27/2006 9:22:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> johnwcox@pacificnw.com writes:
>
> 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
>
>
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 |
|
One of the big considerations in an engine conversion is comparing
horsepower. Most aircraft have much higher continous hoursepower rating
than the auto counterpart. Auto engines tend to quote peak HP. I did a
VW
conversion on a dragonfly that I built and continually had problems
because
airplanes require much higher continous HP in cruise than autos do. A
truck
engine would be a better match, but they are too heavy. I too, would
not
do a conversion unless I converted a lot of green $$$ into a lycoming.
my $.02
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doerr, Ray R
[NTK]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 8:09 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
No I would not buy another auto conversion. I am an engineer and I
don't
like what I've seen in terms of engineering for these firewall forward
packages. It is more like engineering by trial and error and
unfortunately
I had to be the guy that found an error. That being said, I do think
the
Subaru is a great engine, but currently the displacement isn't large
enough
for these engines to be running at 2700 RPM with no gear reduction
drive.
Now is Subaru came out with a boxer 8 cylinder in the 5.0 liter range
with
dual plugs/ignition and dual built in alternators for them, a very small
gear reduction drive that would maybe run the engine at 3,500 RPM with
prop
at 2700 would give a hassle free 2000+ hour TBO. Some of the things
I've
found that were not addresses very well were Fuel delivery, location of
the
pumps (cabin, engine side of firewall, in the tank etc), air flow for
oil
and water coolers.
Some of the other factors I've considered this time round is
to
ensure that everyone in the aviation industry can put a price on the
components that make up my plane. Example: The engine even as a core
as a
define value, the Garmin components in the panel, the airframe, prop
etc.
This way if I every needed to sell it/part it out for any reason, I
could
get a fair price for the individual piece.
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 McGANN, Ron
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:53 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
browse Subscriptions page, Chat, FAQ,
HREF=3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic=
s.com
/Navigator?RV10-List
Wiki!
HREF=3D"http://wiki.matronics.com">http://wiki.matronics.com
support!
HREF=3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c=
ontri
bution
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 - autogas vapor pressure |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning <ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
Hi Kelly, I completely agree. I typed lower but meant
higher just as you described. With a hot tunnel at
altitude potential for vapor lock is high. I think
winter gas has an even higher vapor pressure.
For sealing the tanks I was going to use friction stir
welding - just like the Eclipse jet. Harbor Freight
has a special on one and includes free pocket knife if
you act now.... kidding!
Eric
--- Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
> --> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV Assembly Workshop |
In a message dated 4/28/2006 10:57:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
n8vim@arrl.net writes:
I think we have the problem of having work, life and family get in the
way of what we want to do (build!)
Now, off to the dentist!
-Jim 40384, stalled on the Flaps (Ha!)
The things that get in your way will allow me to build my -10!! Steve -
(dentist)
Stephen Blank RV-10 Builder #40499 / Cessna 170B flyer
766 SE River Lane
Port St. Lucie, FL 34983
772-475-5556 cell - evenings and weekends
do not archive
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: .311 Drill bit part number |
--> RV10-List message posted by: <gommone7@bellsouth.net>
> Thanks,Hugo
> From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
> Date: 2006/04/28 Fri AM 11:26:41 EDT
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV10-List: .311 Drill bit part number
>
> MC Part number is: 2958A126
>
>
> Michael Sausen
> RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
> Do Not Archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gommone7@bellsouth.net
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 9:59 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Re: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: <gommone7@bellsouth.net>
>
> Hi,can you post the par number for mc Master regarding the .311 drill bit.
> Hugo
> >
> > From: JSMcGrew@aol.com
> > Date: 2006/04/28 Fri AM 09:59:31 EDT
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
> >
> >
> >
> > For those of you that haven't gotten to drilling the landing gear
> > mount yet, I just wanted to put in my 2 cents as well. Please, don't
> > take this the wrong way, it's just another way to solve the same
> > problem: I followed Van's instructions exactly and used a .311 / 7.9
> > mm drill to mount the landing gear. It was easy, I didn't have any
> > problems, and the bolts fit great. I bought the drill from McMaster-Carr for
$8.63 including shipping.
> >
> > Jim
> > 40134
> >
> > In a message dated 4/28/2006 5:39:04 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
> > flysrv10@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rob Kermanj" <flysrv10@gmail.com>
> >
> > You can use a rechargable drill with the reamer. Oil the bit well.
> > I did not have to drill before the reamer. In fact, I found it hard
> > to have space to drill anything from the top side.
> >
> > The reamers blades have a step to transition to the shank. Since I
> > used the reamer backward, I had to grind a slope to be able to pull
> > the reamer from the bottom of the hole through the top.
> >
> > Find this reamer and if you want, call me and I will walk you through.
> >
> > do not archive.
> > 772-460-3907
> > Rob Kermanj
> >
> > On 4/27/06, Conti, Rick <rick.conti@boeing.com> wrote:
> > > --> 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
> > > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim "Scooter" McGrew
> > jsmcgrew@aol.com
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ====================================
> ====================================
> ====================================
> ====================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Nose Wheel Valve |
How many have already done the nose wheel assembly? I just got off the
phone with S____ (Hmm, who could that be?) at Van=92s and he says that
the
nuts and washer that come on the tube aren=92t needed, but just to use a
rubber grommet around the valve stem where the wheel halves come
together.
Doesn=92t that seem like a fairly easy and rather important thing to
have
somewhere in the plans instead of just =93bolt the wheel halves back
together=94?
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
HYPERLINK "mailto:jesse@itecusa.org"jesse@itecusa.org
HYPERLINK "http://www.itecusa.org"www.itecusa.org
352-465-4545
--
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: RV Assembly Workshop |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
Message 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: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Ok John, it's Friday and so I'm not too interested in continuing
to work the remaining parts of my posterior off anymore, so
I'll take time to type. ;)
Oh, and you really ought to get to OSH.
For my first x/c trip, being Sun-N-Fun, you all know how that
went as I posted already. This past weekend I took another
shorter trip across the state to see Abby from Flightline so
she could see the results of her hard work, and so I could take
them for a ride. I tried to fly at 9500' for some of the trip,
which was planned for 1:15. I had to change between the 5500'
and 9500' level though, as I was flying into worse weather
from better, and had a cloud deck in that range that
went from broken to solid to broken, and I didn't want to
get trapped on top - unplanned.
Climbing to altitude is nice and quick in the -10, and one thing
I keep forgetting is to lead *during* the climb after 5,000'.
I noticed my EGT's dropping way off as I climbed. Once in cruise,
I was amazed at how far I could lean it out. On the trip to
Sun-N-Fun, I just leaned it a bit, not really using precision.
This time I leaned it to peak or very close, and then richened
it up. I found I can get better fuel flows than before.
I have numbers written down but not with me.
I did a round trip with 3 legs, and on the return leg I tried
flying at both 4500' and 8500', trying to find a smooth ride.
I found it smoother, of course, at 8500'. What I noticed
though in setting up my leaning, was I could keep the same
TAS at 8500', but on less fuel, so even with a couple kts
of headwind extra, it's a smoother ride on less fuel.
Last night I read a very cool little rant, and there's a
cool application available. I'd HIGHLY suggest reading
this page: http://www.x-plane.com/cruisealt.html
One thing I'm still squeamish on though is turbulence in
the -10. Va is about 125 kts. You're cruising so far
above that, that I get really "puckered" when I hit some
bumps. The small bumps don't bother me, but it's the
memory of my big bump during transition training (Yes
John, I'm scarred for life. ;) ) that gets me all uptight.
I feel like if I hit a couple bumps at high speed, that
perhaps the big one is just ahead. So I search for
smooth air as much as possible.
There are no...and I mean NO, line of sight or visibility
issues in the -10. Period. The view is great in most
directions other than backwards.
Randy called me a couple nights ago and we agreed on one thing
for sure... Crosswinds in the -10 are a very easy. The -10
has so much rudder, and it just handles crosswinds great.
I have much less aversion to 20-25Kt winds than I had before,
even if they're not straight on. Landing the -10 hasn't
changed for me since the first flight...it's really easy.
I did drop one in at one point, but that was an oddity. Most
landings are ones that other people don't just find
acceptable, but actually impressive, and that's not all me...
a lot of it's the plane.
As for handling, people wanting a -6/-7 handling will be
sorely disappointed, but people who want a solid plane
that's good for IFR flight will love it. Oh, when
I say disappointed, that's not to say that it isn't light
and great feeling. It just doesn't have the roll and
ultra-light feel that those planes would. The -10 controls
get VERY heavy at higher airspeeds. I don't think you'd
have a very easy time rolling the -10 at 140+ Kts. Your
stick takes a LOT of force in roll at those speeds. Pitch
is still very light. Below 120Kts, the -10 is much more
roll-maneuverable. Keeping in mind the wish for a stable
IFR platform, this fits my needs perfectly. The Sundowner
though was a plane that, due to it's slower speeds,
was a solid but more roll-maneuverable feeling plane.
The -10 should be very close, but only at it's lower
speed range.
I've mentioned before the need for slower trim speeds in
cruise. This is *kind of* hard for me to stand solidly
behind. I have been able to get trimmed up pretty nicely
with the thing running at full trim speed. But, just due
to the extreme quickness that you could get into a very
hard climb or descent at cruise, I still think an automatic
speed switch would be a good idea above 120 Kts or so.
It is necessary...no, not at all. But, the one time you
have something go wrong at high speeds, like bumping
the button, you hopefully will make it though it with
no problems...it could be scary. If nothing were to ever
go wrong though, I'd see no reason to take the time to
wire in a speed reduction. For me, it's cheap enough so
I'll probably do it, but it's on the back burner and will
likely happen in the off season.
Back to the old Yaw damper discussions... I tried hard in the
bumps on this last trip to see if I really thought it needed
it. I guess I'm stuck about where I am on the trim. I
personally don't know that I'll ever add a yaw damper.
And I wouldn't maybe recommend spending the money on the servo
until you're flying already and can see for yourself. If
you want rock solid "no-wiggles" in your tail though, it's
something I guess to consider. I've never flown with one,
so I don't know how effective they are. What I can say
though is that there, in turbulence, a slight tail wiggle
in the -10. It hasn't bothered my kids so far, and at
present I don't intend to add a yaw damper myself. It's
not at all what I'd consider too awful.
Oh, and they're about 20 times more fun to fly than they
are to build, so that should give you some motivation
to finish. ;)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John Jessen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
>
> Tim, nice post, BUT....
>
> Speaking of flying RV-10's and all us poor souls still deburring away, how
> about you guys giving us some encouragement by writing about your beautiful
> flying machines! Where did you go on your very first trip after you were
> let out of the box? What does it handle like in different flying
> conditions? What's the view like? Where have you found sight line
> difficulties? How does it handle crosswind landings? How is your panel
> working out (Tim does not need to answer this; he already has) and what
> would you do differently? The list of topics is almost endless! Common!
> Give us a breadcrumb or two..., please. I'm not going to be able to get to
> OSH, so can't depend on the fireside chats.
>
> John Jessen
> ~328 (and pictures, too, send pictures)
>
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: Nose Wheel Valve |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
You mean we were supposed to put something around the stem?
If there's supposed to be a grommet there, I should probably
yank my wheel and put one on. Don't want future probs.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jesse Saint wrote:
> How many have already done the nose wheel assembly? I just got off the
> phone with S____ (Hmm, who could that be?) at Vans and he says that the
> nuts and washer that come on the tube arent needed, but just to use a
> rubber grommet around the valve stem where the wheel halves come
> together. Doesnt that seem like a fairly easy and rather important
> thing to have somewhere in the plans instead of just bolt the wheel
> halves back together?
>
>
>
> Do not archive.
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Auto engine conversion |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
I decided to go with an auto conversion, so I yanked the hemi out of my Dodge 1/2
ton pickup. The low end power is great and it will cruise all day without a
hitch. Acceleration and climb are a bit slow, but it really sounds pretty cool.
I am having some cooling problems and am redesigning the air inlets which I
hope will help. It's running mogas without any problems. Overall I think it will
work out OK, but it burns a lot of gas and has cost me a lot. It's probably
the first Dodge pickup running with an IO-540. Ohhhhh! You mean put a car engine
in an airplane and fly around with my family in it? No thanks. :)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=31419#31419
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: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston@popsound.com>
Hey all -
I'm going through the finish kit items looking at what I need and don't,
and wondered if anyone is planning on using the james cowl? I've heard
(very secondhand info) that the fit was a bit of a chore - just
wondering if anyone's got any firsthand info or thoughts?
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: .311 Drill bit part number |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
29355A131
Hvy Dty Cobalt Steel Jobbers' Twist Drill Bit 7.9 mm Sz, 117 mm
O'all Length, 75 mm Flute Length
In stock
Quantity Each
1-11 Each $7.54
12 or more 6.45
----- Original Message -----
From: <gommone7@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: .311 Drill bit part number
> --> RV10-List message posted by: <gommone7@bellsouth.net>
>
>
>> Thanks,Hugo
>> From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>> Date: 2006/04/28 Fri AM 11:26:41 EDT
>> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: RV10-List: .311 Drill bit part number
>>
>> MC Part number is: 2958A126
>>
>>
>> Michael Sausen
>> RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
>> Do Not Archive
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> gommone7@bellsouth.net
>> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 9:59 AM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Re: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
>>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: <gommone7@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> Hi,can you post the par number for mc Master regarding the .311 drill
>> bit.
>> Hugo
>> >
>> > From: JSMcGrew@aol.com
>> > Date: 2006/04/28 Fri AM 09:59:31 EDT
>> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> > Subject: Re: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > For those of you that haven't gotten to drilling the landing gear
>> > mount yet, I just wanted to put in my 2 cents as well. Please, don't
>> > take this the wrong way, it's just another way to solve the same
>> > problem: I followed Van's instructions exactly and used a .311 / 7.9
>> > mm drill to mount the landing gear. It was easy, I didn't have any
>> > problems, and the bolts fit great. I bought the drill from
>> > McMaster-Carr for $8.63 including shipping.
>> >
>> > Jim
>> > 40134
>> >
>> > In a message dated 4/28/2006 5:39:04 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
>> > flysrv10@gmail.com writes:
>> >
>> > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rob Kermanj" <flysrv10@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > You can use a rechargable drill with the reamer. Oil the bit well.
>> > I did not have to drill before the reamer. In fact, I found it hard
>> > to have space to drill anything from the top side.
>> >
>> > The reamers blades have a step to transition to the shank. Since I
>> > used the reamer backward, I had to grind a slope to be able to pull
>> > the reamer from the bottom of the hole through the top.
>> >
>> > Find this reamer and if you want, call me and I will walk you through.
>> >
>> > do not archive.
>> > 772-460-3907
>> > Rob Kermanj
>> >
>> > On 4/27/06, Conti, Rick <rick.conti@boeing.com> wrote:
>> > > --> 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
>> > > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> > > 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
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Jim "Scooter" McGrew
>> > jsmcgrew@aol.com
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ====================================
>> ====================================
>> ====================================
>> ====================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Auto engine conversion |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
LOL. You really had me going........!
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of steveadams
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 11:25 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Auto engine conversion
--> RV10-List message posted by: "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
I decided to go with an auto conversion, so I yanked the hemi out of my
Dodge 1/2 ton pickup. The low end power is great and it will cruise all day
without a hitch. Acceleration and climb are a bit slow, but it really sounds
pretty cool. I am having some cooling problems and am redesigning the air
inlets which I hope will help. It's running mogas without any problems.
Overall I think it will work out OK, but it burns a lot of gas and has cost
me a lot. It's probably the first Dodge pickup running with an IO-540.
Ohhhhh! You mean put a car engine in an airplane and fly around with my
family in it? No thanks. :)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=31419#31419
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: | Nose Wheel Valve |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Might want to talk to Van's. That's what they told me. This is the type of
things about Van's that can drive a guy crazy. I'm not complaining about
Van's. They are so great to deal with and have such an awesome bunch of
kits and great plans to make it easy. I guess we are just so spoiled that
when we run into something like this it is very annoying, when I am sure a
lot of people building those "other kits" would think that is just "par for
the course".
Do not archive.
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 Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Nose Wheel Valve
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
You mean we were supposed to put something around the stem?
If there's supposed to be a grommet there, I should probably
yank my wheel and put one on. Don't want future probs.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jesse Saint wrote:
> How many have already done the nose wheel assembly? I just got off the
> phone with S____ (Hmm, who could that be?) at Vans and he says that the
> nuts and washer that come on the tube arent needed, but just to use a
> rubber grommet around the valve stem where the wheel halves come
> together. Doesnt that seem like a fairly easy and rather important
> thing to have somewhere in the plans instead of just bolt the wheel
> halves back together?
>
>
>
> Do not archive.
>
>
--
--
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Auto engine conversion |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Now that's good humor.
Do not archive.
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 steveadams
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 1:25 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Auto engine conversion
--> RV10-List message posted by: "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
I decided to go with an auto conversion, so I yanked the hemi out of my
Dodge 1/2 ton pickup. The low end power is great and it will cruise all day
without a hitch. Acceleration and climb are a bit slow, but it really sounds
pretty cool. I am having some cooling problems and am redesigning the air
inlets which I hope will help. It's running mogas without any problems.
Overall I think it will work out OK, but it burns a lot of gas and has cost
me a lot. It's probably the first Dodge pickup running with an IO-540.
Ohhhhh! You mean put a car engine in an airplane and fly around with my
family in it? No thanks. :)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=31419#31419
--
--
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: | ASC and Close Tolerance Bolts |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
Just my opinion, but I decided a while back to avoid or at least limit
business with Aircraft Spruce. On more than one occasion I have called
because a picture on their web site was very unclear or I need some
help. I learned most of their phone operators couldn't pick an airplane
out of a line up with a toaster and locomotive. No help to those of us
new to building. Against my better judgment, I just tried to order some
close tolerance bolts. Searched, found them, selected my size and
inserted 2 in the "order" box. Message came back, part number was not
valid. Best part is, it's their part number. Needless to say, I didn't
call. Instead I went to the Genuine Aircraft Hardware web site to order
the bolts.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
It's just a rant.
Thank You
Rick Conti
Senior Engineering Manager
The Boeing Company
office: 703 - 414 - 6141
blackberry: 571 - 215 - 6134
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Close Tolerance Bolts |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Conti, Rick" <rick.conti@boeing.com>
Recommend Spencer Aircraft
www.apenceraircraft.com
1-800-424-1160 (Jeff)
Washington State
AN175-24A for $6.95. No traceability paperwork back to the
manufacturer, which is not an issue for me. It is in fact a close
tolerance bolt. Same bolt elsewhere is $22.00
Thank You
Rick Conti
Senior Engineering Manager
The Boeing Company
office: 703 - 414 - 6141
blackberry: 571 - 215 - 6134
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Auto engine conversion |
RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540 I am the guy in Ontario.
After a thorough weight analysis the Corvette engine in the RV-10
proves too heavy. You will notice that the Frapper site now says the
General instead of Corvette.I am currently looking into other aluminum
block alternatives.
I will inform the group when I have made my decision.
Dave Hertner
#40164
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Dawson-Townsend
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 11:36 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Auto engine conversion
Frapper says there's a guy in Ontario building a RV-10 with Corvette
power . . .
Is he on the list? Speak up!
TDT
40025
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: Friday, April 28, 2006 9:11 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Auto engine conversion
I spent a considerable amount of time looking into auto conversions
with Eggs being the most promising. I really did not want to put an old
Lycosaur into my -10. However I was unable to find any solid data to
support some of the claims being made and he seems to be constantly 6
months or longer behind his scheduled delivery dates. Even some of his
staunchest supporters privately told me they wouldn't use his new engine
in something like a -10 until it is proven over the next two years. The
new redrive, high operating RPM's, and past history of Egg claiming HP
numbers that were shown to be wrong really put me off eventually. Also,
when I pushed the issue around constantly changing HP numbers I was
banned from his group. Nice! It basically came down to a trust issue
with me, I think Egg is probably genuine in his resolve that the engine
can do what it says but I want real numbers on paper and Egg just would
not do it. With myself and 3 other souls on board I could not in good
conscious select an unproven engine with NO real world data. By going
with Barrett I will pay more in fuel but I have 100% confidence in his
reputation and his ability to deliver what he says. Also having it run
on the dyno helps ;-).
Now I know there are several -10 builders going with the Subie and I
honestly wish them all the best and really hope the engine meets it's
computed numbers (he does not dyno any engines) as this would be an
excellent alternative to the engines we usually use. I still think that
it would be an excellent engine for any of the 2 seat RV's. Not flaming
Egg, just stating my opinions along with some facts.
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
Do Not Archive
Recent RV-10 Build Activity
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doerr, Ray R
[NTK]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 7:09 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
No I would not buy another auto conversion. I am an engineer and I
don't like what I've seen in terms of engineering for these firewall
forward packages. It is more like engineering by trial and error and
unfortunately I had to be the guy that found an error. That being said,
I do think the Subaru is a great engine, but currently the displacement
isn't large enough for these engines to be running at 2700 RPM with no
gear reduction drive. Now is Subaru came out with a boxer 8 cylinder in
the 5.0 liter range with dual plugs/ignition and dual built in
alternators for them, a very small gear reduction drive that would maybe
run the engine at 3,500 RPM with prop at 2700 would give a hassle free
2000+ hour TBO. Some of the things I've found that were not addresses
very well were Fuel delivery, location of the pumps (cabin, engine side
of firewall, in the tank etc), air flow for oil and water coolers.
Some of the other factors I've considered this time round
is to ensure that everyone in the aviation industry can put a price on
the components that make up my plane. Example: The engine even as a
core as a define value, the Garmin components in the panel, the
airframe, prop etc. This way if I every needed to sell it/part it out
for any reason, I could get a fair price for the individual piece.
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 McGANN, Ron
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:53 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
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
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
browse Subscriptions page, Chat, FAQ,
HREF=3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic=
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Wiki!
HREF=3D"http://wiki.matronics.com">http://wiki.matronics.com
support!
HREF=3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c=
ontribution
-----
28/04/2006
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Auto engine conversion with good links for Lycoming operation |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning <ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
I had a subaru H6 engine in my garage for a short time
and I looked at Egg for quite awhile as well. I came
to the same conclusions, I think it might be ok for
two-seaters but the H6 does not have what it takes for
the high power operation needed in the RV-10. I'm
still looking at rotaries - no showstoppers (for me)
yet.
Air-cooled lycomings have years of refinement and very
good power/weight ratio but they do operate with
little margin in some areas and need a fairly high
level of care. For example, leaning at high power
settings,EGT/CHT limits near the material limits,
start procedures, manual mixture, 100LL, oil
consumption, life-limited parts, operating temp range
and expecations on usage.
Modern ignition and fuel balancing overcome some of
these. 6 probe CHT/EGT help and FADEC will likely be
more common in the future. If you have to have a
lycoming than the 6-cylinder is a good choice as it is
much smoother than the 4 cylinder.
Here is a site with great info:
http://www.buy-ei.com/Manuals/The%20Pilots%20Manual%20(by%20EI).pdf
Read page 6 for info on lycoming IO-540 fuel burn at
rich and lean settings - good graph too.
and of course Lycoming's site and flyer key reprints:
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=/support/publications/keyReprints/index.html
Concerning reliabilty, for auto or air, it is usually
related systems that fail and not the engine itself.
Lack of fuel seems to be the most common (vapor lock,
plugged, or just out...) The best engine in the world
will not help if the underlying aircraft systems are
deficient. I bet Van's FWF packages have "saved" many
builders by providing a good foundation of tested
systems.
Eric
--- "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
<rvbuilder@sausen.net> wrote:
> I spent a considerable amount of time looking into
> auto conversions with Eggs being the most promising.
> I really did not want to put an old Lycosaur into
> my -10. However I was unable to find any solid data
> to support some of the claims being made and he
> seems to be constantly 6 months or longer behind his
> scheduled delivery dates. Even some of his
> staunchest supporters privately told me they
> wouldn't use his new engine in something like a -10
> until it is proven over the next two years. The new
> redrive, high operating RPM's, and past history of
> Egg claiming HP numbers that were shown to be wrong
> really put me off eventually. Also, when I pushed
> the issue around constantly changing HP numbers I
> was banned from his group. Nice! It basically came
> down to a trust issue with me, I think Egg is
> probably genuine in his resolve that the engine can
> do what it says but I want real numbers on paper and
> Egg just would not do it. With myself and 3 other
> souls on board I could not in good conscious select
> an unproven engine with NO real world data. By
> going with Barrett I will pay more in fuel but I
> have 100% confidence in his reputation and his
> ability to deliver what he says. Also having it run
> on the dyno helps ;-).
>
> Now I know there are several -10 builders going
> with the Subie and I honestly wish them all the best
> and really hope the engine meets it's computed
> numbers (he does not dyno any engines) as this would
> be an excellent alternative to the engines we
> usually use. I still think that it would be an
> excellent engine for any of the 2 seat RV's. Not
> flaming Egg, just stating my opinions along with
> some facts.
>
>
> Michael Sausen
>
> RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> Recent RV-10 Build Activity
>
<http://www.mykitlog.com/display_project.php?project_id=22>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Doerr, Ray R [NTK]
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 7:09 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
>
>
>
> No I would not buy another auto conversion. I am an
> engineer and I don't like what I've seen in terms of
> engineering for these firewall forward packages. It
> is more like engineering by trial and error and
> unfortunately I had to be the guy that found an
> error. That being said, I do think the Subaru is a
> great engine, but currently the displacement isn't
> large enough for these engines to be running at 2700
> RPM with no gear reduction drive. Now is Subaru
> came out with a boxer 8 cylinder in the 5.0 liter
> range with dual plugs/ignition and dual built in
> alternators for them, a very small gear reduction
> drive that would maybe run the engine at 3,500 RPM
> with prop at 2700 would give a hassle free 2000+
> hour TBO. Some of the things I've found that were
> not addresses very well were Fuel delivery, location
> of the pumps (cabin, engine side of firewall, in the
> tank etc), air flow for oil and water coolers.
>
> Some of the other factors I've
> considered this time round is to ensure that
> everyone in the aviation industry can put a price on
> the components that make up my plane. Example: The
> engine even as a core as a define value, the Garmin
> components in the panel, the airframe, prop etc.
> This way if I every needed to sell it/part it out
> for any reason, I could get a fair price for the
> individual piece.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 McGANN, Ron
> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:53 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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=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
>
=== message truncated ===
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: Auto engine conversion |
I know what you mean, I've been trying to get my Dodge 3500's Cummins
turbo diesel crammed under the cowl. I mean geez, the thing is only a
IO-360. It should fit, right? It would be perfect at 305HP, 350,000
miles before overhaul, and it doesn't need a redrive. LMAO
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of steveadams
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 1:25 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Auto engine conversion
--> RV10-List message posted by: "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
I decided to go with an auto conversion, so I yanked the hemi out of my
Dodge 1/2 ton pickup. The low end power is great and it will cruise all
day without a hitch. Acceleration and climb are a bit slow, but it
really sounds pretty cool. I am having some cooling problems and am
redesigning the air inlets which I hope will help. It's running mogas
without any problems. Overall I think it will work out OK, but it burns
a lot of gas and has cost me a lot. It's probably the first Dodge pickup
running with an IO-540. Ohhhhh! You mean put a car engine in an airplane
and fly around with my family in it? No thanks. :)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D31419#31419
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=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 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Andair 20X7T fuel selector extension |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
I just asked this question via email...
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:55:57 +0100
Sorry for the dely on replying to you, we have just got back from the Sun and
Fun airshow. In response to your query,as you already have the valve you will
require an EX-7 extention upgrade kit which although can be ordered from our
website if you contact us via e-mail we can process this directly. The price of
the EX-7 is 50 (50x1.73=$86.50)+ shipping .this is for a extention kit with a
straight extention, if you require any UJ's or cuplers, or longer extention
tubes prices may vary. Thank-you for your enquiry, if we can be of any further
assistance please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to hearing
from you.
Kind Regards,
Owen Phillips
Andair LTD
www.andair.co.uk
Tel +44 (0)2392 473954
Fax +44 (0)2392 473956
...snip...
Sorry if this has already been covered......I'm having a heck of a time finding
the six inch extension for the Andair valve. Do I have to get it from
the folks
in the UK? I tried the distributors and listed in the US with no luck.
I bought the FS20X7. Is the extension universal?
...snip...
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: Auto engine conversion with good links for Lycoming operation |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
> --- "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
> <rvbuilder@sausen.net> wrote:
>
>> I still think that it would be an
> > excellent engine for any of the 2 seat RV's. Not
> > flaming Egg, just stating my opinions along with
> > some facts.
It is amusing to see the Subie dialog applied to the -10 recapitulate virtually
every issue that played out on the 2 seat RV lists over the past several years.
Only difference was that the risk scenario was only one other soul on board,
rather than three.
It was the case that since dyno figures were never part of the discussion, most
of the inference about horsepower was based on fuel flows.
For me, the big deciding factors in an auto engine conversion are 1) no longevity
data for years to come and 2) the resale stigma. This sucker is gonna be a
substantial capital investment, and if putting a non-aircraft engine does anything
reliably to an experimental, it is that it reliably decreases its resale
value.
That said, I am very glad there are pioneers who want to do this. (in recognition
that the pioneers take the arrows and the settlers get the land).
-Dan Masys
#40448
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New fuel valve handle |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
Mike,
Do you mean "fuel selector" rather than "fuel valve"? Sorry for the
dumb question, but there's no photo on your website.
Thanks,
Jay
Do not archive
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 |
|
Cc: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
--> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net>
---- Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
> It just doesn't have the roll and
> ultra-light feel that those planes would. The -10 controls
> get VERY heavy at higher airspeeds. I don't think you'd
> have a very easy time rolling the -10 at 140+ Kts. Your
> stick takes a LOT of force in roll at those speeds.
The controls get increasingly heavy on my -7A at increasing airspeeds also, especially
above 180 KIAS. In fact, in power on descents when it rather easily gets
to its 200kt Vne, the heavy stick forces are as reliable an the airspeed indicator.
The 200hp -7A is already like the -10 in that it is more nose-heavy
than the 180hp 2 seat RV's, and it is for that reason a little more stable IFR
platform than the lightweight engine + prop combinations.
-Dan Masys
#40448
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 |
|
| Subject: | Extra fuel tanks |
The question remains... What was the airspeed in knots. I'm not engaging
in the banter about valid airspeed. Just your number Please! The rest
of the dialog is well known to the group about identical aircraft,
identical engines, identical power settings. Am I the only one that has
notices dozens of flying RV-10s and everyone is hiding their personal
performance numbers?
About the only positive response has been on empty weight. No one is
identifying their change in CG from the factory spec. There are lots of
question on component placement that would help builders if there was
less secrecy. At least Tim mentioned he did not have the loading
problem as quoted by VANS. We should all be able to ask, "And what did
he do to solve that obstacle?"
What is it about you MT prop twirlers that keeps data so close to the
vest. I can't make out your whisper, could you shout it once again
please... Airspeed that is. I got the chicken part. Today is Friday and
it smells fishy.
John - $-00.02
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LessDragProd@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Extra fuel tanks
Hi John,
The manifold pressure was 23".
Regarding airspeed.
IMHO, the ONLY way to get VALID comparison airspeed numbers between
propellers is to fly them on the same aircraft and engine WITH NO OTHER
CHANGES MADE.
I have offered to pay the expenses and provide the 3 blade MT Propeller
for a Hartzell propeller equipped RV-10 to do the testing. I think it
says a GREAT deal that there have been NO TAKERS from RV-10's with the
RV-10 Hartzell propeller.
What are you Hartzell drivers? CHICKEN?
With Best Regards,
Jim Ayers
PS Was that gauntlet to subtle?
In a message dated 04/27/2006 9:22:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
johnwcox@pacificnw.com writes:
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
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: | Extra fuel tanks |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Touche' and an excellent solution to the challenge. My heart was in
hearing you pick up the gauntlet though. I suspect Hartzell sees little
advantage with 96% of the RV-10 market.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Extra fuel tanks
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I think it says a GREAT DEAL too. Things like:
* Being happy with their prop
* Content to leave things as-is due to satisfaction
* Unwillingness to remove some nicely saftied critical prop bolts
for no reason.
* Waning interest in spending more money
I know people would love to see the numbers on an MT, but it would
take more than an offer of "allowing" me to fly one for free
and go through the pain in the butt to pull those bolts and
put on the new prop. My feeling is, when something is buttoned
up nicely, you don't increase reliability by pulling it apart
a couple more times. In addition, there are still some minor
things I'd like to complete, and once you're flying already,
it seems that most everything drops to the bottom of your
priority list.
But, hopefully someone will bite, as it would be nice to see
the numbers.
Maybe it should go the other way....offer a Hartzell to someone
flying an MT. It's a cheaper prop to ship, and to buy to
send them.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
LessDragProd@aol.com wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> The manifold pressure was 23".
>
> Regarding airspeed.
>
> IMHO, the ONLY way to get VALID comparison airspeed numbers between
> propellers is to fly them on the same aircraft and engine WITH NO
> OTHER CHANGES MADE.
>
> I have offered to pay the expenses and provide the 3 blade MT
Propeller
> for a Hartzell propeller equipped RV-10 to do the testing. I think it
> says a GREAT deal that there have been NO TAKERS from RV-10's with the
> RV-10 Hartzell propeller.
>
> What are you Hartzell drivers? CHICKEN?
>
> With Best Regards,
> Jim Ayers
> PS Was that gauntlet to subtle?
>
> In a message dated 04/27/2006 9:22:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> johnwcox@pacificnw.com writes:
>
> 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
>
>
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Auto engine conversion with good links for Lycoming operation |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning <ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
Dan,
I agree - Cessna is the way to go. If it was good
enough for grandpa it's good enough for me. Would you
believe people are putting "experimental" airplanes
together in their garage??? Some of these people
started building before the supplier even finished the
kit or quoted the final cost.
I've even read that some of the early pioneers started
with just a bunch of raw materials and vague plans.
Why they didn't wait for the pre-punched kits is a
mystery.... :)
I'm sure the Cessna and Piper owners discuss the risk
scenario of building your own plane all the time.
Acceptable risk is a complex decision that ultimately
everyone has to make for themselves. I think for most
builders, the risk tradeoffs are primarily made in
panels. VFR/IFR/full IFR/ Glass cockpit/ autopilot/
Mode-S Traffic/Oxygen/ TCAS/ TAWS/ Forward looking IR/
? How much is enough? Does the answer change if it is
2 or 4 souls? Another risk is too much plane and not
enough money left for gas...
Agree on resale value and lack of dyno data. I think
the aquisition cost can be lower but the resale value
is lower still. Even dyno is not sufficient as
ultimate performance also depends on drag - tied
closely to cooling drag, etc.
Have a great weekend,
Eric
40150 - Working on mating center and forward section
of fuselage.
--- Dan Masys <dmasys@cox.net> wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Dan Masys
> <dmasys@cox.net>
>
> > --- "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
> > <rvbuilder@sausen.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I still think that it would be an
> > > excellent engine for any of the 2 seat RV's.
> Not
> > > flaming Egg, just stating my opinions along with
> > > some facts.
>
> It is amusing to see the Subie dialog applied to the
> -10 recapitulate virtually every issue that played
> out on the 2 seat RV lists over the past several
> years. Only difference was that the risk scenario
> was only one other soul on board, rather than three.
>
>
> It was the case that since dyno figures were never
> part of the discussion, most of the inference about
> horsepower was based on fuel flows.
>
> For me, the big deciding factors in an auto engine
> conversion are 1) no longevity data for years to
> come and 2) the resale stigma. This sucker is gonna
> be a substantial capital investment, and if putting
> a non-aircraft engine does anything reliably to an
> experimental, it is that it reliably decreases its
> resale value.
>
> That said, I am very glad there are pioneers who
> want to do this. (in recognition that the pioneers
> take the arrows and the settlers get the land).
>
> -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 |
|
| Subject: | Auto engine conversion |
Tim, try your request on a smaller auto engine conversion than the GM
Corvette (that was some time ago) and he may speak up on the secret to
auto conversions of all flavors. It is the design, engineering and
manufacturing reliability of the PSRU. I can't say much more without
his response. Remember the goal is to keep from adding weight up front.
The fallacy of planes falling out of the sky with 261+ horsepower is
already long gone. Safety, Reliability, Serviceability... now those are
adverbs we could dig our teeth into.
John - $00.02
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 8:36 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Auto engine conversion
Frapper says there's a guy in Ontario building a RV-10 with Corvette
power . . .
Is he on the list? Speak up!
TDT
40025
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: Friday, April 28, 2006 9:11 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Auto engine conversion
I spent a considerable amount of time looking into auto conversions
with Eggs being the most promising. I really did not want to put an old
Lycosaur into my -10. However I was unable to find any solid data to
support some of the claims being made and he seems to be constantly 6
months or longer behind his scheduled delivery dates. Even some of his
staunchest supporters privately told me they wouldn't use his new engine
in something like a -10 until it is proven over the next two years. The
new redrive, high operating RPM's, and past history of Egg claiming HP
numbers that were shown to be wrong really put me off eventually. Also,
when I pushed the issue around constantly changing HP numbers I was
banned from his group. Nice! It basically came down to a trust issue
with me, I think Egg is probably genuine in his resolve that the engine
can do what it says but I want real numbers on paper and Egg just would
not do it. With myself and 3 other souls on board I could not in good
conscious select an unproven engine with NO real world data. By going
with Barrett I will pay more in fuel but I have 100% confidence in his
reputation and his ability to deliver what he says. Also having it run
on the dyno helps ;-).
Now I know there are several -10 builders going with the Subie and I
honestly wish them all the best and really hope the engine meets it's
computed numbers (he does not dyno any engines) as this would be an
excellent alternative to the engines we usually use. I still think that
it would be an excellent engine for any of the 2 seat RV's. Not flaming
Egg, just stating my opinions along with some facts.
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
Do Not Archive
Recent RV-10 Build Activity
<http://www.mykitlog.com/display_project.php?project_id=3D22>
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doerr, Ray R
[NTK]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 7:09 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
No I would not buy another auto conversion. I am an engineer and I
don't like what I've seen in terms of engineering for these firewall
forward packages. It is more like engineering by trial and error and
unfortunately I had to be the guy that found an error. That being said,
I do think the Subaru is a great engine, but currently the displacement
isn't large enough for these engines to be running at 2700 RPM with no
gear reduction drive. Now is Subaru came out with a boxer 8 cylinder in
the 5.0 liter range with dual plugs/ignition and dual built in
alternators for them, a very small gear reduction drive that would maybe
run the engine at 3,500 RPM with prop at 2700 would give a hassle free
2000+ hour TBO. Some of the things I've found that were not addresses
very well were Fuel delivery, location of the pumps (cabin, engine side
of firewall, in the tank etc), air flow for oil and water coolers.
Some of the other factors I've considered this time round is
to ensure that everyone in the aviation industry can put a price on the
components that make up my plane. Example: The engine even as a core
as a define value, the Garmin components in the panel, the airframe,
prop etc. This way if I every needed to sell it/part it out for any
reason, I could get a fair price for the individual piece.
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 McGANN, Ron
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:53 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
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=
d
6
>1-40eec3d4b353&Dynamic=3D1&Range=3DNOW&FromDate=3D04%2F24%2F2006&ToDate=3D=
04%2F
2
>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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
browse Subscriptions page, Chat, FAQ,
HREF=3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic=
s
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Wiki!
HREF=3D"http://wiki.matronics.com">http://wiki.matronics.com
support!
HREF=3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c=
o
ntribution
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: | Andair 20X7T fuel selector extension |
Jay =96
I try to keep a few extensions on hand, but I=92m out at the moment.
I=92ll
be happy to order more, but I need to order at least a dozen to get the
shipping cost down to a reasonable level. So=85
RV-10=92ers =96
If you need an EX-7 Extension kit for your FS20X7 fuel valve, or
anything else from Andair (a specific valve, different fittings for your
valve, gascolator, etc) please let me know. I=92d like to place an
order
early next week.
Neal E. George
244 Andrews Street
Maxwell AFB, AL 36113
Home - 334-262-8993
Cell - 334-546-2033
--> RV10-List message posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer
<jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
I just asked this question via email...
Sorry for the dely on replying to you, we have just got back from the
Sun and
Fun airshow. In response to your query,as you already have the valve you
will
require an EX-7 extention upgrade kit which although can be ordered from
our
website if you contact us via e-mail we can process this directly. The
price of
the EX-7 is =A350 (50x1.73=3D$86.50)+ shipping .this is for a extention
kit
with a
straight extention, if you require any UJ's or cuplers, or longer
extention
tubes prices may vary. Thank-you for your enquiry, if we can be of any
further
assistance please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to
hearing
from you.
Kind Regards,
Owen Phillips
Andair LTD
www.andair.co.uk
Tel +44 (0)2392 473954
Fax +44 (0)2392 473956
...snip...
Sorry if this has already been covered......I'm having a heck of a time
finding
the six inch extension for the Andair valve. Do I have to get it
from
the folks
in the UK? I tried the distributors and listed in the US with no
luck.
I bought the FS20X7. Is the extension universal?
...snip...
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: Performance Spec - Was: Extra fuel tanks |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
John,
I don't know that I'd buy that there's anyone trying to "hide"
performance numbers. I think that it's actually a bit less
convenient to get the numbers than people may think.
For me, I didn't have wheel fairings for any of the flyoff period.
So, numbers were fairly meaningless for that time period. Then
after the flyoff, I've spent a considerable amount of my flying
time doing what you do best in a 4 seater....taking people for
short flights. And when you're hauling around your friends,
family, and co-workers, you don't spend time dinking around with
the numbers....heck, you have a hard enough time focusing on
the flight itself while trying to find their house to circle
around.
My actual time spent in cruise, at altitudes worthy of
gathering data, has been pretty short and fairly rare to date.
For me, it's actually probably even easier than for some to
post numbers, because the Cheltons do all of the Density altitude
and TAS calculations for me, and I just have to jot them down.
But on the last few flights I've had lots of other things to
do.....even down to being the one who has to hand over the
stick so I can get the movies playing for the kids.
And then, you still like to crank up the tunes and sit and zone
out and enjoy the flight a bit too.
So sure, we could get more numbers. And I hope people do
gather them and post them. I'm as curious as anyone else
to know how my plane measures up. I'm not concerned if I'm
in cruise at 160kts, or 170kts, myself, except for the
perspective of that if I'm WAAAY off what everyone else is,
I need to find out what kind of rigging problem I'd have
to deal with....like with Randy's flaps originally. Other than
that, I'm not too concerned with the exact numbers. I know
that I can fly to Orlando in just about 7 hours. I know that
I can fly to San Diego in about 12.
Also, when it comes to MT vs. Hartzell, if nobody's going to
take Jim up on his offer then we're going to need a good sized
sample group to compare. So far, many of the MT owners are
also people who have 300-325Hp engines. I know that it seems
like a simple and small request, to have someone yank a
prop and swap it, and get numbers on it, but once you have
your kit built, you've already decided on YOUR prop. The
difference, performance, smoothness, and everything else
becomes irrelevant unless you're willing to sell your now
used prop for a new one. So no, I'm not really too interested
in pulling a prop for "the cause". I 'spose if someone
offered me $2500 for the time, effort, and fuel to go fly
their prop, I'd think about it...but that's the kind of
thing it would take at this point. Avgas at $3.50-4.50/gallon
isn't going to be conducive to going flying just for data.
One other addition....if it's numbers a person wants,
here's some to chew on....(remember that I'm conservative in my
estimations, so I overestimate costs for everything a tiny bit,
and I underestimate my flight planning speeds)
Hourly operating costs of the RV-10, including Fuel (figured
at about $3.75/gallon, Oil, Oil changes, avionics upkeep, and
engine reserve: Approx. $76/hr
Add in the costs for my insurance, and hanger (el'cheapo at $50/mo),
and average it over 100 hours per year, and now your actual
operating costs are around $117/hr.
Yes, I am one of those anal people who pay into their reserve
fund for their hourly costs....it helps me relax knowing that
I'm saving for my next engine overhaul and that any major
happenings that come up shouldn't keep me down for long.
So the RV-10 might be a nice, fast, and fairly efficient plane,
but you shouldn't be building to save $$$$ over renting. I know
rental rates are all over the map out there, but in many places
$117/hr could rent you a pretty nice plane, and you wouldn't have
to plunk down $125K+ to fly it....you could be earning
interest on that money instead. Those are the kinds of numbers
I really wanted to know before I jumped on the -10 wagon.
The other thing that keeps the numbers from getting out is that
people tend to fall away from the list a bit when they're done
building. I don't see that happening to me.....so sorry to those who
can't stand these long posts.....I just like you guys too much
to let go. ;)
I'll try to keep adding performance number occasionally, but my
REAL goal is to get some good aerial photos and video, along
with some in-cockpit stuff of the same, and then maybe make a
cool RV-10 video some day....that would keep people pumped
up a bit.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John W. Cox wrote:
> The question remains What was the airspeed in knots. Im not engaging
> in the banter about valid airspeed. Just your number Please! The rest
> of the dialog is well known to the group about identical aircraft,
> identical engines, identical power settings. Am I the only one that has
> notices dozens of flying RV-10s and everyone is hiding their personal
> performance numbers?
>
>
>
> About the only positive response has been on empty weight. No one is
> identifying their change in CG from the factory spec. There are lots of
> question on component placement that would help builders if there was
> less secrecy. At least Tim mentioned he did not have the loading
> problem as quoted by VANS. We should all be able to ask, And what did
> he do to solve that obstacle?
>
>
>
> What is it about you MT prop twirlers that keeps data so close to the
> vest. I cant make out your whisper, could you shout it once again
> please Airspeed that is. I got the chicken part. Today is Friday and
> it smells fishy.
>
>
>
> John - $-00.02
>
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *LessDragProd@aol.com
> *Sent:* Friday, April 28, 2006 8:09 AM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Extra fuel tanks
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> The manifold pressure was 23".
>
>
>
> Regarding airspeed.
>
>
>
> IMHO, the ONLY way to get VALID comparison airspeed numbers between
> propellers is to fly them on the same aircraft and engine WITH NO
> OTHER CHANGES MADE.
>
>
>
> I have offered to pay the expenses and provide the 3 blade MT Propeller
> for a Hartzell propeller equipped RV-10 to do the testing. I think it
> says a GREAT deal that there have been NO TAKERS from RV-10's with the
> RV-10 Hartzell propeller.
>
>
>
> What are you Hartzell drivers? CHICKEN?
>
>
>
> With Best Regards,
>
> Jim Ayers
>
> PS Was that gauntlet to subtle?
>
>
>
> In a message dated 04/27/2006 9:22:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> johnwcox@pacificnw.com writes:
>
> 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 Gores request for SPEED data.
>
> John Cox
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Paul Walter" <pdwalter@bigpond.net.au>
Is it correct that MT are manufacturing a two bladed composite prop for the
10
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@avidyne.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 1:42 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Props
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
> <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
>
>
> Down boy! : )
>
> Hey, doesn't Van's sell the MT prop, now, too? Why don't we talk Van's
> into doing a comparison between the props on one of the factory planes?
> Makes sense to me . . .
>
> TDT
> 40025
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 11:34 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Extra fuel tanks
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> I think it says a GREAT DEAL too. Things like:
>
> * Being happy with their prop
> * Content to leave things as-is due to satisfaction
> * Unwillingness to remove some nicely saftied critical prop bolts
> for no reason.
> * Waning interest in spending more money
>
> I know people would love to see the numbers on an MT, but it would
> take more than an offer of "allowing" me to fly one for free
> and go through the pain in the butt to pull those bolts and
> put on the new prop. My feeling is, when something is buttoned
> up nicely, you don't increase reliability by pulling it apart
> a couple more times. In addition, there are still some minor
> things I'd like to complete, and once you're flying already,
> it seems that most everything drops to the bottom of your
> priority list.
>
> But, hopefully someone will bite, as it would be nice to see
> the numbers.
>
> Maybe it should go the other way....offer a Hartzell to someone
> flying an MT. It's a cheaper prop to ship, and to buy to
> send them.
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> LessDragProd@aol.com wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>> The manifold pressure was 23".
>>
>> Regarding airspeed.
>>
>> IMHO, the ONLY way to get VALID comparison airspeed numbers between
>> propellers is to fly them on the same aircraft and engine WITH NO
>> OTHER CHANGES MADE.
>>
>> I have offered to pay the expenses and provide the 3 blade MT
> Propeller
>> for a Hartzell propeller equipped RV-10 to do the testing. I think it
>
>> says a GREAT deal that there have been NO TAKERS from RV-10's with the
>
>> RV-10 Hartzell propeller.
>>
>> What are you Hartzell drivers? CHICKEN?
>>
>> With Best Regards,
>> Jim Ayers
>> PS Was that gauntlet to subtle?
>>
>> In a message dated 04/27/2006 9:22:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> johnwcox@pacificnw.com writes:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Andair 20X7T fuel selector extension |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "N777TY" <microsmurfer@yahoo.com>
I need to ask this (for a friend) -- is this extension required? Why are folks
putting it? I think Tim O. didn't put one in.. What's the final answer? :)
--------
RV-7A
N777TY (res)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=31514#31514
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: | cowling alignment |
On the earlier RV models it was common to align the cowling so that the
top edge of the forward cowling was 1/8" or so lower than the prop
spinner. The theory was that the engine would settle about that amount
in operation and "sag" into good alignment.
Of those flying, did any of you do this? If not have you noticed and
settling of the engine in the early operations?
Like many subjects there was always a good bit of debate about whether
or not this settling happened and if the technique worked or was
necessary.
Thanks
Dick Sipp
40065
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
I'm sure this'll create some discussion, but I was wondering what (besides
hundreds of $s) is the real difference in HVLP guns on the market. The SATA
seems very popular, and I know you get what you pay for, but exactly how is
it different than the $100 HVLP guns that look similar from a distance at
the auto parts store or Lowe's?
Thanks, and sorry if it's deemed a stupid question.
Marcus
40286 - stuck on wiring
do not archive
Message 52
| 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: Andair 20X7T fuel selector extension |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Nope, I did put one in. It's not technically "required". The issue
is, if you want to use the Andair valve , which has some real
plusses, or even if you use the other valve, there are clearance
issues with the rear seat SCAT heater tube, and also with the
proximity of the rudder cables to the valve. There's not much
clearance in the tunnel in some spots. Putting a valve handle
extension in allows you to lower the valve itself, which gives
many mounting benefits, and *possibly* some slight flow benefits,
and it allows much more clearance for the SCAT tube. The
photos kind of show the differences if you check them out.
Perhaps I should take a pair of photos and make a comparison
on my site?? If someone else has some good photos of a standard
valve install...
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
N777TY wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "N777TY" <microsmurfer@yahoo.com>
>
> I need to ask this (for a friend) -- is this extension required? Why
> are folks putting it? I think Tim O. didn't put one in.. What's
> the final answer? :)
>
> -------- RV-7A N777TY (res)
>
>
Message 53
| 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: cowling alignment |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I did this. With just over 60 hours it hasn't had time to settle yet.
I've pretty much consistently heard it will happen though.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Richard Sipp wrote:
> On the earlier RV models it was common to align the cowling so that the
> top edge of the forward cowling was 1/8" or so lower than the prop
> spinner. The theory was that the engine would settle about that amount
> in operation and "sag" into good alignment.
>
> Of those flying, did any of you do this? If not have you noticed and
> settling of the engine in the early operations?
>
> Like many subjects there was always a good bit of debate about whether
> or not this settling happened and if the technique worked or was necessary.
>
> Thanks
>
> Dick Sipp
> 40065
Message 54
| 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: Auto engine conversion |
RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540John,
Thank you. You are a trusted friend.
There can be only one way to approach the development of a viable
alternative engine for aircraft. Your company has to act like an
aircraft engine company! This means that you need to have a product
that, although based on an automotive engine has been scrutinized with
the eye of an aeronautical engineer, not a race car mechanic. The loads
imparted by an aircraft have to be accounted for. There is no way around
it.
One excellent example of a cavalier attitude encountered in this
arena is in the engine management software. How many of you out there
have heard of someone who would like to use an OEM control module and
has had some backyard reprogrammer go in an turn a few things off so
that it will work for an aircraft application? What do you think that an
engine management software designer in the employ of a large auto
manufacturer has on his mind when writing code pertaining to an engine
over temp? He is going to save the engine!!! He'll command that software
to reduce power or shut down. Is that what you want when you are out
over inhospitable terrain? Not likely!!
I agree with John's take on gearbox's. They have to be designed for
specific applications. I dare say right down to the specific airframe.
It and the engine have to be developed in unison by qualified people.
The information about the package has to be made available.
Independently verified information on horsepower, vibration, fuel
consumption and flight test data should be made available to the buying
public.
I am a believer in geared PSRUs and this has to do with history.
The geared PSRU using spur gears has been the most successful
configuration throughout the years and has demonstrated reliability in
numerous high horsepower aircraft applications.
What drives innovation is the needs of the customer. How many of you
out there have heard someone else say that they wish that there was some
alternative to the current offerings? When talking about the IO-540, the
pickings are even slimmer.
I am working to establish a propulsion systems company that will
respect the needs of the builders of experimental aircraft and I will
have an alternative engine in my RV-10. I will not be releasing details
prematurely but when I do, they will be independently verified. As well,
my RV-10 airframe will be professionally flight tested with this
propulsion system so as to provide the best information possible to any
potential customer who is trusting his/her life and the lives of his/her
loved ones to it. I will even go as far as testing both Hartzell and MT
propellers so that the comparative data is available.
The thing that I think stops most builders in their tracks when
contemplating an alternative engine is not the engine. It invariably is
the lack of a complete firewall forward solution. Look at all of the
failures to provide this out there. Innodyne, Crossflow and DeltaHawk
are the first three to come to mind. If I am able to offer a package it
will be just that. A total package. Engine, PSRU(mated), cowl(fitted to
a production jig and ready to paint), cooling system(designed and tested
for the specific airframe)and a dual engine management system that is
designed and programmed specifically for the aircraft environment.
All this will take time. I wouldn't respect any company that rushes
through this and who doesn't have people with the proper credentials
doing the designing.
Thanks for the opportunity John.
Dave Hertner
#40164
----- Original Message -----
From: John W. Cox
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 6:56 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Auto engine conversion
Tim, try your request on a smaller auto engine conversion than the GM
Corvette (that was some time ago) and he may speak up on the secret to
auto conversions of all flavors. It is the design, engineering and
manufacturing reliability of the PSRU. I can't say much more without
his response. Remember the goal is to keep from adding weight up front.
The fallacy of planes falling out of the sky with 261+ horsepower is
already long gone. Safety, Reliability, Serviceability. now those are
adverbs we could dig our teeth into.
John - $00.02
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 8:36 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Auto engine conversion
Frapper says there's a guy in Ontario building a RV-10 with Corvette
power . . .
Is he on the list? Speak up!
TDT
40025
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: Friday, April 28, 2006 9:11 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Auto engine conversion
I spent a considerable amount of time looking into auto conversions
with Eggs being the most promising. I really did not want to put an old
Lycosaur into my -10. However I was unable to find any solid data to
support some of the claims being made and he seems to be constantly 6
months or longer behind his scheduled delivery dates. Even some of his
staunchest supporters privately told me they wouldn't use his new engine
in something like a -10 until it is proven over the next two years. The
new redrive, high operating RPM's, and past history of Egg claiming HP
numbers that were shown to be wrong really put me off eventually. Also,
when I pushed the issue around constantly changing HP numbers I was
banned from his group. Nice! It basically came down to a trust issue
with me, I think Egg is probably genuine in his resolve that the engine
can do what it says but I want real numbers on paper and Egg just would
not do it. With myself and 3 other souls on board I could not in good
conscious select an unproven engine with NO real world data. By going
with Barrett I will pay more in fuel but I have 100% confidence in his
reputation and his ability to deliver what he says. Also having it run
on the dyno helps ;-).
Now I know there are several -10 builders going with the Subie and I
honestly wish them all the best and really hope the engine meets it's
computed numbers (he does not dyno any engines) as this would be an
excellent alternative to the engines we usually use. I still think that
it would be an excellent engine for any of the 2 seat RV's. Not flaming
Egg, just stating my opinions along with some facts.
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
Do Not Archive
Recent RV-10 Build Activity
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doerr, Ray R
[NTK]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 7:09 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
No I would not buy another auto conversion. I am an engineer and I
don't like what I've seen in terms of engineering for these firewall
forward packages. It is more like engineering by trial and error and
unfortunately I had to be the guy that found an error. That being said,
I do think the Subaru is a great engine, but currently the displacement
isn't large enough for these engines to be running at 2700 RPM with no
gear reduction drive. Now is Subaru came out with a boxer 8 cylinder in
the 5.0 liter range with dual plugs/ignition and dual built in
alternators for them, a very small gear reduction drive that would maybe
run the engine at 3,500 RPM with prop at 2700 would give a hassle free
2000+ hour TBO. Some of the things I've found that were not addresses
very well were Fuel delivery, location of the pumps (cabin, engine side
of firewall, in the tank etc), air flow for oil and water coolers.
Some of the other factors I've considered this time round
is to ensure that everyone in the aviation industry can put a price on
the components that make up my plane. Example: The engine even as a
core as a define value, the Garmin components in the panel, the
airframe, prop etc. This way if I every needed to sell it/part it out
for any reason, I could get a fair price for the individual piece.
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 McGANN, Ron
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:53 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Autogas for 540
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
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
browse Subscriptions page, Chat, FAQ,
HREF=3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic=
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Wiki!
HREF=3D"http://wiki.matronics.com">http://wiki.matronics.com
support!
HREF=3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c=
ontribution
-----
28/04/2006
Message 55
| 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: Auto engine conversion |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
Message 56
| 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: | Andair 20X7T fuel selector extension |
Neal,
If you don=92t mind keeping one in stock for a while, I=92ll be needing
one in a
couple of months or so. I=92m just a little south of you in Enterprise.
Rob
#392
QB delivery next week!
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Neal George
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 7:11 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Andair 20X7T fuel selector extension
Jay =96
I try to keep a few extensions on hand, but I=92m out at the moment.
I=92ll be
happy to order more, but I need to order at least a dozen to get the
shipping cost down to a reasonable level. So=85
RV-10=92ers =96
If you need an EX-7 Extension kit for your FS20X7 fuel valve, or
anything
else from Andair (a specific valve, different fittings for your valve,
gascolator, etc) please let me know. I=92d like to place an order early
next
week.
Neal E. George
244 Andrews Street
Maxwell AFB, AL 36113
Home - 334-262-8993
Cell - 334-546-2033
--> RV10-List message posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer
<jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
I just asked this question via email...
Sorry for the dely on replying to you, we have just got back from the
Sun
and
Fun airshow. In response to your query,as you already have the valve you
will
require an EX-7 extention upgrade kit which although can be ordered from
our
website if you contact us via e-mail we can process this directly. The
price
of
the EX-7 is =A350 (50x1.73=3D$86.50)+ shipping .this is for a extention
kit with
a
straight extention, if you require any UJ's or cuplers, or longer
extention
tubes prices may vary. Thank-you for your enquiry, if we can be of any
further
assistance please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to
hearing
from you.
Kind Regards,
Owen Phillips
Andair LTD
www.andair.co.uk
Tel +44 (0)2392 473954
Fax +44 (0)2392 473956
...snip...
Sorry if this has already been covered......I'm having a heck of a time
finding
the six inch extension for the Andair valve. Do I have to get it
from
the folks
in the UK? I tried the distributors and listed in the US with no
luck.
I bought the FS20X7. Is the extension universal?
...snip...
Message 57
| 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: RV10-List :Fuel Economy |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net>
Tim & list:
Your comments on the operation of your airplane are great, good motivation
and insight.
With all the valid concern lately over fuel costs there are some operational
techniques that will help save fuel.
Many folks are uncomfortable with cruising "over square" (with the manifold
pressure higher than the RPM). This type of operation is permitted by
Lycoming (with limitations at low altitude) and does provide better fuel
economy. A side benefit is quieter operation and often less vibration. For
example, the same 65% best economy mixture power can be produced at both of
these fuel flows:
2000 RPM & 11.8 GPH
2600 RPM & 13.3 GPH
(page 3-35 operators manual)
the difference of course is the throttle setting. Think of shifting into
overdrive in a car.
the same 65% at best power mixture results in fuel flows of 13.6 & 15.2 GPH
for the respective RPM settings which demonstrates the importance of leaning
below 75%.
As for propellers, this should probably be in the catagory of whether or not
to prime, everyone has good reasons for their choice. In my case I'll be a
part of the minority using an MT; I'll accept a few knots less IF that is
the case for the smooooth, quiet operation. I understand that the 3 blade
props also become more efficient as altitude increases which is hopefully
where much of cruising in an airplane like the 10 will be done.
Dick Sipp
#40065
Many years ago a respected RV test pilot, Chuck Berthe, wrote a great
article in Kit Planes comparing constant speed and fixed pitch propellers.
The article contained lots of good cost calculations. I asked him if he
flew his airplane "oversquare" his answer was "as much as I can as much as I
can."
Message 58
| 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: cowling alignment |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
it does settle; my Glastar has 250 hours and has settled into position. plan
the same adjustment for the 10.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: cowling alignment
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> I did this. With just over 60 hours it hasn't had time to settle yet.
> I've pretty much consistently heard it will happen though.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Richard Sipp wrote:
>> On the earlier RV models it was common to align the cowling so that the
>> top edge of the forward cowling was 1/8" or so lower than the prop
>> spinner. The theory was that the engine would settle about that amount
>> in operation and "sag" into good alignment.
>> Of those flying, did any of you do this? If not have you noticed and
>> settling of the engine in the early operations?
>> Like many subjects there was always a good bit of debate about whether
>> or not this settling happened and if the technique worked or was
>> necessary.
>> Thanks
>> Dick Sipp
>> 40065
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 59
| 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 Tim,
A little oops here.
The Hartzell RV-10 propeller is unique to the RV-10. And only an RV-10
builder can buy one.
Best Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 04/28/2006 8:39:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Tim@MyRV10.com writes:
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
(Stuff Cut)
Maybe it should go the other way....offer a Hartzell to someone
flying an MT. It's a cheaper prop to ship, and to buy to send them.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Message 60
| 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 |
|
Rob K -
Do you guys have your extra info on the 3400/3500 for dissemination yet?
I'm wondering if you'll have a simple CDI needle presentation, or if I need
to plan on the external CDI for ILS. Or, can I legally fly a GPS-overlaid
ILS on the 480 screen if there is no LNAV approach into the airport? What
would really be nice is if AOPA could publish some figures on when they
expect all ILSs to have an overlaid LNAV approach, which would make the ILS
moot, redundant, outdated, cost-prohibitive, etc..
Rob Wright
#392
Message 61
| 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 |
|
Hi Paul,
MT Propeller will design a two blade, or four blade, or whatever you feel
you want that is reasonable.
They can even provide an aluminum 2 blade or 3 blade propeller.
They designed a 3 blade "natural composite" propeller for the RV-10, because
their engineering analysis showed this provided the best performance and
overall characteristics. Especially being 18 pounds lighter than the 2 blade
Hartzell.
A 2 blade "natural composite" MT propeller would weigh about 1 pound lighted
than the 3 blade propeller. The 2 blade hub is much bigger to handle bigger
blades required, and the 2nd order harmonic vibration present with a 2 blade
propeller.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 04/28/2006 6:06:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
pdwalter@bigpond.net.au writes:
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Paul Walter" <pdwalter@bigpond.net.au>
Is it correct that MT are manufacturing a two bladed composite prop for the
10
Message 62
| 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 |
Part number / description below from _www.mcmaster.com_
(http://www.mcmaster.com/) :
Line Quantity Part Number Description Unit Price Total Price
Ships 1 1
Each _30565A304_
(http://www.mcmaster.com/nav/enter.asp?partnum=30565A304&pagenum=2291)
Hvy Duty Metric Hss Jobbers' Twist Drill Bit 7.9 mm Size, 114mm O'all
Length, 81mm Flute Length
$4.13 $4.13
In a message dated 4/28/2006 9:08:23 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
gommone7@bellsouth.net writes:
--> RV10-List message posted by: <gommone7@bellsouth.net>
Hi,can you post the par number for mc Master regarding the .311 drill bit.
Hugo
>
> From: JSMcGrew@aol.com
> Date: 2006/04/28 Fri AM 09:59:31 EDT
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: My 2 Cents on the Landing Gear
>
>
>
> For those of you that haven't gotten to drilling the landing gear mount
yet,
> I just wanted to put in my 2 cents as well. Please, don't take this the
> wrong way, it's just another way to solve the same problem: I followed
Van's
> instructions exactly and used a .311 / 7.9 mm drill to mount the landing
gear. It
> was easy, I didn't have any problems, and the bolts fit great. I bought
the
> drill from McMaster-Carr for $8.63 including shipping.
>
> Jim
> 40134
>
> In a message dated 4/28/2006 5:39:04 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
> flysrv10@gmail.com writes:
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rob Kermanj" <flysrv10@gmail.com>
>
> You can use a rechargable drill with the reamer. Oil the bit well. I
> did not have to drill before the reamer. In fact, I found it hard to
> have space to drill anything from the top side.
>
> The reamers blades have a step to transition to the shank. Since I
> used the reamer backward, I had to grind a slope to be able to pull
> the reamer from the bottom of the hole through the top.
>
> Find this reamer and if you want, call me and I will walk you through.
>
> do not archive.
> 772-460-3907
> Rob Kermanj
>
> On 4/27/06, Conti, Rick <rick.conti@boeing.com> wrote:
> > --> 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
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim "Scooter" McGrew
> jsmcgrew@aol.com
>
>
Jim "Scooter" McGrew
jsmcgrew@aol.com
Message 63
| 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>
The biggest difference is in the precision of the air metering
circuitry, spring tensions and quality of adjustment in the spray
pattern. The differences do not really show themselves until cleanup
and adjustment after exposure to chemicals and paint materials. I have
some guns that look battle wary yet throw a perfect pattern after 30
years and I have some Chinese made which look gorgeous after 30 days and
lay an atrocious pattern.
The ability to lay a uniform line with no edge fade or heavier
application of topcoat is not visual by looking at the gun but rather
the applied paint on the job. The pleasure of pulling a trigger for a
12 hour episode versus blisters after two is a strange measure of
difference.
John $00.02
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 7:12 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Paint Guns
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
I'm sure this'll create some discussion, but I was wondering what
(besides
hundreds of $s) is the real difference in HVLP guns on the market. The
SATA
seems very popular, and I know you get what you pay for, but exactly how
is
it different than the $100 HVLP guns that look similar from a distance
at
the auto parts store or Lowe's?
Thanks, and sorry if it's deemed a stupid question.
Marcus
40286 - stuck on wiring
do not archive
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|