Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:29 AM - Re: Re: IO-540 Hose kit -possible group buy ()
2. 04:42 AM - Re: Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the RV-10 (Tim Olson)
3. 05:53 AM - Tunnel Heat (Rob Kermanj)
4. 06:27 AM - Important documents worth filing (John W. Cox)
5. 06:36 AM - Security fallout (John Jessen)
6. 06:37 AM - Re: Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the RV-10 (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
7. 07:12 AM - Re: Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the RV-10 (Tim Olson)
8. 07:27 AM - Re: Important documents worth filing (Tim Olson)
9. 07:27 AM - Re: Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the RV-10 (speckter@comcast.net)
10. 07:38 AM - Re: Front Axle Reference Info (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
11. 07:58 AM - Re: lighting (Larry Rosen)
12. 08:17 AM - Re: Front Axle Reference Info (Tim Olson)
13. 08:55 AM - Re: Front Axle Reference Info (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
14. 08:57 AM - Re: Front Axle Reference Info (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
15. 09:00 AM - Re: Front Axle Reference Info (Jay Wik)
16. 09:19 AM - Re: Front Axle Reference Info (Tim Olson)
17. 09:31 AM - Re: Front Axle Reference Info (Tim Olson)
18. 09:36 AM - Re: Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the RV-10 (Randy DeBauw)
19. 09:52 AM - Re: Front Axle Reference Info (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
20. 10:15 AM - Re: Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the RV-10 (John Jessen)
21. 10:27 AM - Re: Front Axle Reference Info (Tim Olson)
22. 10:29 AM - Re: Front Axle Reference Info (David McNeill)
23. 10:40 AM - Re: Front Axle Reference Info (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
24. 10:48 AM - Re: Important documents worth filing (John W. Cox)
25. 10:58 AM - Re: Front Axle Reference Info (speckter@comcast.net)
26. 11:57 AM - Re: Front Axle Reference Info (Henkjan van der Zouw)
27. 01:03 PM - Re: Front Axle Reference Info (Tim Olson)
28. 01:32 PM - Re: IO-540 Hose kit -possible group buy (Rick)
29. 02:40 PM - Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
30. 03:20 PM - Re: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
31. 03:29 PM - Re: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution (Cal Hoffman)
32. 03:55 PM - Re: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
33. 03:55 PM - Re: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
34. 04:19 PM - Re: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution (David McNeill)
35. 04:24 PM - Matco contact (David McNeill)
36. 04:38 PM - Finish Kit Date (bcondrey)
37. 09:07 PM - Re: Overhead Console (Jay)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IO-540 Hose kit -possible group buy |
--> RV10-List message posted by: <gorejr@bellsouth.net>
Bill,
I would be interested. Jim Gore
>
> From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
> Date: 2006/08/11 Fri AM 12:36:57 EDT
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: IO-540 Hose kit -possible group buy
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
> Bill, I'm close to receiving my engine, count me as interested
>
> Deems
>
> W. Curtis wrote:
>
> > RV-10 builders nearing Firewall Forward or engine planning stage.
> > Having not ordered the Firewall Forward kit yet and just planning
> > ahead, I've looked at the plans and determined the following hoses are
> > required for the IO-540 installation:
> >
> > VA-119 IE VMP HOSE (AN4, 21.5, AIR) $ 34.60
> > VA-102 FUEL PRES. HOSE (AN4, 15.5, FUEL) $ 58.20
> > VA-133 OIL PRESS HOSE (AN4, 27.25, OIL) $ 69.00
> > VA-138 FUEL SUPPLY HOSE (AN6, 14.0, FUEL) $ 69.65
> > VA-189 FUEL LINE IO-540 (AN6, 25.5, FUEL) $153.45
> > VA-135 OIL COOLER HOSE (AN8, 16.5, OIL) $ 66.85
> > VA-190 OIL COOLER HOSE (AN8, 27.0, OIL) $ 95.65
> >
> > I'm not sure but I think the only Van's hose that is Teflon with the
> > integral firesleeve are the VA-138 and VA-189 hoses. I requested a
> > quote from Aircraft Hose (http://www.aircrafthose.com) for the above
> > hoses ALL Teflon with integral firesleeve except the (VA-119) MAP
> > Hose. They came back with and initial price of $491 for the set. The
> > Van's price for the set of hoses (not all Teflon with integral
> > firesleeve) is about $545. I've asked them if they could offer a
> > greater discount if we could arrange a group buy. I haven't heard back
> > from them yet but wanted to get you thinking.
> >
> > Here are the specifics.
> > Stratoflex Integral Firesleeve Hoses for RV-10
> > 111-4 hose with a 300-4D fitting 21.50" Long (111001-4CR0214) (IO-540
> > Man Press.)
> > 124-4J hose with a 524-4CR fitting 15.50" Long (124J001-4CR0154)
> > (IO-540 Fuel Press.)
> > 124-4J hose with a 524-4CR fitting 27.25" Long (124J001-4CR0272)
> > (IO-540 Oil Press.)
> > 124-6J hose with a 524-6CR fitting 14.00" Long (124J001-6CR0140)
> > (IO-540 Fuel Supply)
> > 124-6J hose with a 524-6CR fitting 25.50" Long (124J001-6CR0254)
> > (IO-540 Fuel Line)
> > 124-8J hose with a 524-8CR fitting 16.50" Long (124J001-8CR0164) (Oil
> > cooler)
> > 124-8J hose with a 524-8CR fitting 27.00" Long (124J001-8CR0270) (Oil
> > cooler)
> >
> > Hose with Integral firesleeve
> > http://www.aircrafthose.com/images/pic1248j.jpg
> >
> > Hose with external firesleeve
> > http://www.aircrafthose.com/images/pic2650c.jpg
> >
> > William Curtis
> > http://nerv10.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the RV-10 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Yeah, but not until I get all the new parts and see them.
That's one hole I'll "drill once".
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
ddddsp1@juno.com wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Are you planning to drill thru the fork into the axle and TAP it with a
> contersunk screw to keep the axle from turning like you did to the
> spacer? I am thinking it would be easy to do and would eliminate the
> axle from turning even if the wheel got loose.
>
> Dean
>
> Getting engine today.
>
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 |
|
I insulated the tunnel, including the fuel lines (fear of vapor lock)
and found that it made absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in the radiating heat
from the tunnel. I will next try the Y hose split as suggested by
Van and really hope that I can get results.
RV10 Tunnel - 2
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: | Important documents worth filing |
Here are a set of FAA documents that those still building might find
valuable. Those flying please disregard. They will change with the
September recommendations of the Task Force.
The 8130.2F has just been revised.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0
/9A00207837D6A395862571A8005B0BBD?OpenDocument
Here is the AC20-27F.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCirc
ular.nsf/0/0CA2845E2AAFFFBB86256DBF00640CB2?OpenDocument
John Cox
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: | Security fallout |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Did the travel value of the RV-10's we are building just go up? Look what I
got from Delta:
"As you may know, federal authorities have issued new security procedures
that may impact any upcoming travel.
"As a result, you could experience delays at the airport. Please remember to
pack lightly, travel with little or no carry on baggage (due to the
potential screening delays at the security checkpoints) and arrive
approximately three hours prior to your scheduled take-off time. "
Let's see, that's 30-60 mins to get to the airport. 3 hours once there. So
maybe 4 hours. Once at the other side of the trip I have to do this all
over again? That's 8 hours before wheels even get off the ground? Plus, at
least for business trips, I don't get to haul my toothpaste and after shave
with me? Or get to carry on my lunch with a bottle of water (stopped
yesterday from carrying on a smoothie; talk about brain freeze slurping that
down as fast as I could before boarding!).
They gotta do what they gotta do, but I'll sure be glad to fly myself, if
they'll even continue to let me do that. The small jet market must love
this latest event. Jet taxi, anyone?
John J
Tailcone
do not archive
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: | Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the RV-10 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
I don't think they are saying leave them loose. What they are saying is
you don't want to crank down taper bearings as you will destroy them at
a much greater rate than normal and cause even more of the slop you are
seeing. What I think they are missing is that this is a design problem
because the small surface area of the SS bushing is in direct contact
with the aluminum fork. No matter what you do to make sure the axle
stays SNUG, this WILL eventually ware into the fork without something
else to increase the surface area against the fork. This could be a cap
or simply a steel washer.
In my opinion you have the right idea Tim, machine down the axle
whatever the thickness of the washers are and put them in with it.
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Buildus Interuptus due to moving
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the
RV-10
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Wayne, for what it's worth, I really don't think this will work that way
on the RV-10. I may be wrong, but I think you really need to tighten
that thing well on this plane or you'll REALLY have problems.
I'm betting that the assembly those guys are familiar with isn't the
same thing as what we have. If you have any looseness, you're going
to really screw up your axle. I just updated that page....scroll
to the bottom to read tonights update. I got a little long winded again
(surprise surprise), but I explained the axle and rotation and other
things in a bit of depth. For you -10 builders, that page is really
worth understanding, just so you can ponder it and know what's going on
there....even if you come to some other conclusion. (if you do, let me
know...I'd love to hear it, or hear exactly what the mechanics are that
George thinks would be better if it were looser)
I'll post the text of tonights update here again, but you would be much
better served to just read it on the page, and see the latest photos.
This is just for the archive's sake.
Here's the link again.
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/maintenance/20060809/index.html
---
Today I stopped by a machine shop and had them take off about .115" off
my axle, to accomodate 2 AN970-6 washers on the outer edge. Yes, they
are .063 each, so .126" would have been the standard, but I wanted the
axle to be even just a little more snug than before, because any flexing
inward will bring that valve cap closer to the fork. As a side note,
this from John D. today...a note someone sent him:
"returned the nosewheel to Matco to have it replaced with WHLNW511.25
which is correct for the valve stem on the tube and avoids the clearance
problem with the supplies WHLNW501.25."
In other words, Van's is sending out the wrong wheel for the application
on this plane...because they use this wheel for the RV-7's and such, and
didn't want to have to stock 2 parts. So we get to receive the one that
isn't made for the application, and therefore unless you swap wheels,
you're going to have minimal valve stem clearance.....pretty nice, huh?
<not>
Anyway, I had the axle cut shorter at a machine shop, and then I just
had to guesstimate how much to take off the 2 spacers. Knowing they had
worn into a taper on the inside, to fit against the bearing, I had them
only cut down by .085" total. I did .035" on one side, and .050" on the
other. That way I could have a slightly longer sleeve on the left side,
so my valve stem had just that little extra clearance from the fork.
This brought forth a small problem... Tonight when I assembled it as in
the first photo below, it looked great. VERY much better than original.
Then, when I put the whole wheel together, I found that the spacers
had worn probably at least .120" because there was tons of slop in the
spacers yet, even though they now had a nice flat surface to sit
between, and had been cut less than the axle, and the washers were in
there to fill in some space. The spacers just spun. So, I decided
since I already ordered another axle, I'd take my bandsaw and VERY
carefully trim off some more axle, and just use one more washer on the
left side. That should keep that valve stem even FURTHER away. If I
was right, I could get it so there would be plenty of pressure on the
bearings and spacers to hold them in place so they don't spin. Sure
enough, it worked just great. I could now torque that bolt down tight
and keep the spacers from spinning, and the bearing too. Just to be
totally sure they never spun again, I drilled a couple of holes in the
stainless spacers, and remounted it all. Then I made a pilot hole in
the aluminum axle shaft, and took it all apart and tapped it for an 8-32
screw on each spacer. Then I cleaned it up, regreased, and put it all
together. Now it is very solid, and should never wear the fork
again....I just am left with a crappy fork...so I'll probably just get a
new one. Once my new spacers and axle come in, I may tear it all apart
and use those pieces, but I'll still probably cut the axle and spacers
down and use the washers on the outer ends. It will prevent your forks
from being the sacrificial component. The bearing, for future
reference, is a Timken LM-6700-LA (I think that's right, but I'll
re-check tomorrow)
A note about tightening the axle nut... Tonight on the RV-10 list,
someone said that George Orndorff (A Van's tech center place), says that
the bolt should only be snugged, and then rechecked often in the first
few hours. I don't personally believe this is true on the RV-10, but
perhaps it is on the other models. Here's why. I studied this long
and hard, and now I fully understand why this is such a huge freaking
issue. It didn't make sense at first, having worked on dozens and
dozens of automotive bearings in the past. You see, on automotive apps,
the bearings are pressed in on the backside, and a nut and washer holds
the bearing tight. But it pushes against a different area of the
bearing. And the grease seal is usually a seal that is pressed into the
hub, with a seal around the shaft on the ID of the seal. This is NOT
how these bearings are on this application. On THIS application, you
are expecting that the sleeves, the axle, the bolt, AND the inner race
area of the bearing do not ever rotate. The problem is, if these
bearings were a tight knurled, or press fit onto that axle shaft, it
might be easy to keep them from rotating by just not letting the shaft
spin. But, what happens here is that the grease seal is a large seal
that the wheel spins around....so the seal is on the OD of the bearing
in this case. That's why my stinking seals were so torn when the wheel
wobbled. The kicker to the problem is, if you don't have the spacers
very tight against the bearing, there's not enough force to keep the
bearing from turning on the shaft. If the bearing spins on the axle
shaft, then it's becoming USELESS as a bearing. At that point, you're
using the aluminum axle as the bushing, and the wheel is rolling by
spinning the hard steel bearing race against your soft aluminum axle
shaft.....instead of turning the roller bearings inside of the wheel's
outer race. The seal itself has a lot of drag against the wheel as it
spins, and this drag will make it so that the wheel tries REALLY hard to
make the bearing spin. As it turns out, if you don't have tight
spacers, it's really easy to get that bearing spinning. And once the
bearing is spinning, the spacers stuffed right up against it will spin
too. And once they start spinning, they'll spin against the fork. If
you have the stainless ones like me, they'll ABSOLUTELY then start
carving into your forks. If you have the new and improved thick
aluminum ones (that I can't comment firmly on because I haven't seen
them), then they would have more surface area against both the bearing
and the fork....so on one hand the bearing will try to turn it harder,
but the fork will prevent it harder as well. To me, this is STILL
going to be a less than ideal situation until you PREVENT the spacers
from turning, and you PROTECT the forks from being worn if they do turn.
The lock screws I put in should keep the spacers still. The washers
will protect the forks. The one further improvement that would be
simple would be to drill a tiny hole in the fork on one side, that
drills into the aluminum axle, and then tap for a small hex head
internal setscrew lock, so that you could pin the axle from rotating at
all too. Beyond that, the only real improvement I could think of is if
you could find a way to either press-fit, or hold that inner bearing
from turning on the axle. Perhaps knurling it, epoxy, a small keyway
and shear key, or something like that would be the ticket. If you've
done all of the other steps, and have tight spacers, you probably
wouldn't have any huge issues from that point.
The worst thing about it is that no matter what you do, you really don't
have independent control over how tight the bearings are
seated...separate from how tight the axle bolts are and how long the
spacers are. Just to let you know how this all ends up the way I have
it tonight, the wheel will not continue rolling if you spin it by hand.
I don't think it's too tight from a bearing perspective, but the
grease seals against the wheel hub provide a lot of drag, so they don't
let the wheel spin real freely.
A couple other tips, while I'm at it. By the time you get to 25 hours
on your plane, re-check that large nut that holds the fork on. Mine
needed to be tightened almost one full flat to the next castle stop, to
retorque it after it took it's set. I think the spec is about 24lbs.
pull of breakout force to rotate the nose at an angle.
The second tip that I can't yet verify is fairing balance. To prevent
shimmy, I've heard that a good idea is to balance your fairing. Since I
had a little lead shot around, and I wanted this all to be perfect now,
tonight I weighed out a little lead and taped it to the nose of the
nosewheel fairing. I got it so that I could hold it where it mounts, in
the centers of those 4 screw areas, and get it to be about neutrally
balanced. Then I just took a little shot away, poured the rest into
the nose of the fairing, and mixed a couple of squirts of epoxy. I
poured the epoxy into the nose over the shot, put down one layer of
cloth, and then a little more epoxy. By tomorrow that stuff won't be
going anywhere, and I already re-checked the balance and it's now much
less tail heavy, so maybe that will improve things too.
---
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - 107 hours Flying
Wayne Edgerton wrote:
> I'm currently building in Justin, TX in George Orndorff's hangar, he's
> the one that makes the RV building videos and is also a Van's tech
> center, and I was talking to him about this problem, wondering if I
> needed to take some type of action on mine. His response to me on this
> issue was that this was a quite common occurrence on the RV's. He said
> the reason he believes it happens is that when the builder tightens
> down the bolt holding on the bushing and tire that they tighten it
> down too much. He said I should just tighten it down just until it's
> snug. Then after flying it for 5 or 10 hours check it and retighten
> it. Do this over the first 20 or 30 hours.
>
> I have a friend who is an A&P and also a DAR and I called him and ask
> him the same question. He agreed with George. He said to tighten the
> bolt down until a little grease comes out of the bearing and then back
> it off a little and then keep an eye on it for awhile.
>
> This may not be the case on Tim's plane though?
>
> For what ever it's worth.
>
> Wayne Edgerton #40336
>
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: Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the RV-10 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I just had this exchange off-list that might be nice for
the list. Michael wasn't thinking of how the bearings
are torqued down, and now he realizes that it's by the
spacer length. So I'll post my off-list talk here just
for the list's benefit. (I'm really sorry this is getting
so long, but I think we're all eventually going to learn
and benefit from this discussion).
--------
Ok, I'll leave you with this thought then....
The forks by design will lay right on the axle, a fixed distance. The
spacers also lay directly against the fork.
With this design, as you tighten it, the outer faces of both the axle
and the spacers will be flush, and flat against the fork. Therefore
there isn't really any bearing force adjustment possible, because it is
controlled ONLY by the length of the spacers...and it will be perfect
only if the spacers are the perfect length....and it will stay perfect
only if there is no wear. If one were to only snug the
axle bolt slightly, the center axle itself in theory could be less tight
and not flush with the forks,while the spacers ARE. That would make a
whole additional problem in that the axle itself could be the part that
easily turns.
There's one thing that sure would make this a much slicker design....to
have the axle made so the center axle can't turn, and then to have a way
to keep the bearings from rotating on the axle...so they only rotate in
the hub. If that could be done (i.e.
a press-fit, or splined attachment, or something like that) then the
spacers would never spin, and all of this would be a complete non-issue.
This is where Van's really should step in and clarify the torque,
because IMHO, if you're going to just snug that bolt down, you're just
LOOKING for problems.
The design itself is not great....but certain assembly things could
really make it bad.
Think about it a minute, and if you see what I'm saying, maybe I should
move this post to the list. If you think I'm nuts though, then we
should investigate this further.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> I don't think they are saying leave them loose. What they are saying is
> you don't want to crank down taper bearings as you will destroy them at
> a much greater rate than normal and cause even more of the slop you are
> seeing. What I think they are missing is that this is a design problem
> because the small surface area of the SS bushing is in direct contact
> with the aluminum fork. No matter what you do to make sure the axle
> stays SNUG, this WILL eventually ware into the fork without something
> else to increase the surface area against the fork. This could be a cap
> or simply a steel washer.
>
> In my opinion you have the right idea Tim, machine down the axle
> whatever the thickness of the washers are and put them in with it.
>
> Michael Sausen
> RV-10 #352 Buildus Interuptus due to moving
>
>
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: Important documents worth filing |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Wow, that AC20-27F definitely lays it out....it actually makes it
a slight worry that if you go all Quickbuild you might be pushing
the limits....although "entirely" makes it a little more of a stretch
though.
The black and white though: "You hired someone to build the aircraft
for you, and hiring this person means you did not fabricate and
assemble the major portion of the aircraft......Not Eligible"
I didn't read these fully yet though to see the full impact of the
changes.
Hey, while we're on the subject, does anyone want to buy a REALLY
quickbuild Quick-Build kit?
Check this out:
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motors/Aircraft/auction-65732906.htm
You too can own an RV-10 and barely touch a tool. The info I got
from the person who sent me the link is that they've seen
this up close and the workmanship is pretty poor on some items,
and fair on some. Anyway, this would be a bit tricky to get
amateur certified in the US I'd bet. The cost would make a fairly
expensive RV-10 in the end too, considering the things left out.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John W. Cox wrote:
> Here are a set of FAA documents that those still building might find
> valuable. Those flying please disregard. They will change with the
> September recommendations of the Task Force.
>
> The 8130.2F has just been revised.
> _http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/9A00207837D6A395862571A8005B0BBD?OpenDocument_
>
> Here is the AC20-27F.
> _http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/0CA2845E2AAFFFBB86256DBF00640CB2?OpenDocument_
>
> John Cox
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the RV-10 |
Glastar has this same issue. The difference is that they use a Cleveland wheel
that has seals like the main axels. They use an aluminum spacer between the
fork and the bearing (slipped over the axel) and then a small roll pin in the
fork that seats into a small slot on the spacer to stop rotation.
With the radius on the bearing that we have the only solution is to have a spacer
that has the same radius and a large surface area.
Another thing to try is to have a spacer inside the wheel on the axel so that when
you clamp up the whole assembly the inner race of both bearings are clamped
between the spacers and thus you can clamp the bearing race tight without preloading
the bearing excessively.
All in all not a great design from Van.
Gary
40274
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson
>
> Wayne, for what it's worth, I really don't think this will work
> that way on the RV-10. I may be wrong, but I think you really need
> to tighten that thing well on this plane or you'll REALLY have problems.
> I'm betting that the assembly those guys are familiar with isn't the
> same thing as what we have. If you have any looseness, you're going
> to really screw up your axle. I just updated that page....scroll
> to the bottom to read tonights update. I got a little long winded again
> (surprise surprise), but I explained the axle and rotation and other
> things in a bit of depth. For you -10 builders, that page is really
> worth understanding, just so you can ponder it and know what's going
> on there....even if you come to some other conclusion. (if you do,
> let me know...I'd love to hear it, or hear exactly what the mechanics
> are that George thinks would be better if it were looser)
>
> I'll post the text of tonights update here again, but you would be
> much better served to just read it on the page, and see the latest
> photos. This is just for the archive's sake.
>
> Here's the link again.
> http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/maintenance/20060809/index.html
>
> ---
> Today I stopped by a machine shop and had them take off about .115" off
> my axle, to accomodate 2 AN970-6 washers on the outer edge. Yes, they
> are .063 each, so .126" would have been the standard, but I wanted the
> axle to be even just a little more snug than before, because any flexing
> inward will bring that valve cap closer to the fork. As a side note,
> this from John D. today...a note someone sent him:
>
> "returned the nosewheel to Matco to have it replaced with WHLNW511.25
> which is correct for the valve stem on the tube and avoids the clearance
> problem with the supplies WHLNW501.25."
>
> In other words, Van's is sending out the wrong wheel for the application
> on this plane...because they use this wheel for the RV-7's and such, and
> didn't want to have to stock 2 parts. So we get to receive the one that
> isn't made for the application, and therefore unless you swap wheels,
> you're going to have minimal valve stem clearance.....pretty nice, huh?
>
>
> Anyway, I had the axle cut shorter at a machine shop, and then I just
> had to guesstimate how much to take off the 2 spacers. Knowing they had
> worn into a taper on the inside, to fit against the bearing, I had them
> only cut down by .085" total. I did .035" on one side, and .050" on the
> other. That way I could have a slightly longer sleeve on the left side,
> so my valve stem had just that little extra clearance from the fork.
> This brought forth a small problem... Tonight when I assembled it as in
> the first photo below, it looked great. VERY much better than original.
> Then, when I put the whole wheel together, I found that the spacers
> had worn probably at least .120" because there was tons of slop in the
> spacers yet, even though they now had a nice flat surface to sit
> between, and had been cut less than the axle, and the washers were in
> there to fill in some space. The spacers just spun. So, I decided
> since I already ordered another axle, I'd take my bandsaw and VERY
> carefully trim off some more axle, and just use one more washer on the
> left side. That should keep that valve stem even FURTHER away. If I
> was right, I could get it so there would be plenty of pressure on the
> bearings and spacers to hold them in place so they don't spin. Sure
> enough, it worked just great. I could now torque that bolt down tight
> and keep the spacers from spinning, and the bearing too. Just to be
> totally sure they never spun again, I drilled a couple of holes in the
> stainless spacers, and remounted it all. Then I made a pilot hole in
> the aluminum axle shaft, and took it all apart and tapped it for an 8-32
> screw on each spacer. Then I cleaned it up, regreased, and put it all
> together. Now it is very solid, and should never wear the fork
> again....I just am left with a crappy fork...so I'll probably just get a
> new one. Once my new spacers and axle come in, I may tear it all apart
> and use those pieces, but I'll still probably cut the axle and spacers
> down and use the washers on the outer ends. It will prevent your forks
> from being the sacrificial component. The bearing, for future
> reference, is a Timken LM-6700-LA (I think that's right, but I'll
> re-check tomorrow)
>
> A note about tightening the axle nut... Tonight on the RV-10 list,
> someone said that George Orndorff (A Van's tech center place), says that
> the bolt should only be snugged, and then rechecked often in the first
> few hours. I don't personally believe this is true on the RV-10, but
> perhaps it is on the other models. Here's why. I studied this long
> and hard, and now I fully understand why this is such a huge freaking
> issue. It didn't make sense at first, having worked on dozens and
> dozens of automotive bearings in the past. You see, on automotive apps,
> the bearings are pressed in on the backside, and a nut and washer holds
> the bearing tight. But it pushes against a different area of the
> bearing. And the grease seal is usually a seal that is pressed into the
> hub, with a seal around the shaft on the ID of the seal. This is NOT
> how these bearings are on this application. On THIS application, you
> are expecting that the sleeves, the axle, the bolt, AND the inner race
> area of the bearing do not ever rotate. The problem is, if these
> bearings were a tight knurled, or press fit onto that axle shaft, it
> might be easy to keep them from rotating by just not letting the shaft
> spin. But, what happens here is that the grease seal is a large seal
> that the wheel spins around....so the seal is on the OD of the bearing
> in this case. That's why my stinking seals were so torn when the wheel
> wobbled. The kicker to the problem is, if you don't have the spacers
> very tight against the bearing, there's not enough force to keep the
> bearing from turning on the shaft. If the bearing spins on the axle
> shaft, then it's becoming USELESS as a bearing. At that point, you're
> using the aluminum axle as the bushing, and the wheel is rolling by
> spinning the hard steel bearing race against your soft aluminum axle
> shaft.....instead of turning the roller bearings inside of the wheel's
> outer race. The seal itself has a lot of drag against the wheel as it
> spins, and this drag will make it so that the wheel tries REALLY hard to
> make the bearing spin. As it turns out, if you don't have tight
> spacers, it's really easy to get that bearing spinning. And once the
> bearing is spinning, the spacers stuffed right up against it will spin
> too. And once they start spinning, they'll spin against the fork. If
> you have the stainless ones like me, they'll ABSOLUTELY then start
> carving into your forks. If you have the new and improved thick
> aluminum ones (that I can't comment firmly on because I haven't seen
> them), then they would have more surface area against both the bearing
> and the fork....so on one hand the bearing will try to turn it harder,
> but the fork will prevent it harder as well. To me, this is STILL
> going to be a less than ideal situation until you PREVENT the spacers
> from turning, and you PROTECT the forks from being worn if they do turn.
> The lock screws I put in should keep the spacers still. The washers
> will protect the forks. The one further improvement that would be
> simple would be to drill a tiny hole in the fork on one side, that
> drills into the aluminum axle, and then tap for a small hex head
> internal setscrew lock, so that you could pin the axle from rotating at
> all too. Beyond that, the only real improvement I could think of is if
> you could find a way to either press-fit, or hold that inner bearing
> from turning on the axle. Perhaps knurling it, epoxy, a small keyway
> and shear key, or something like that would be the ticket. If you've
> done all of the other steps, and have tight spacers, you probably
> wouldn't have any huge issues from that point.
>
> The worst thing about it is that no matter what you do, you really don't
> have independent control over how tight the bearings are
> seated...separate from how tight the axle bolts are and how long the
> spacers are. Just to let you know how this all ends up the way I have
> it tonight, the wheel will not continue rolling if you spin it by hand.
> I don't think it's too tight from a bearing perspective, but the
> grease seals against the wheel hub provide a lot of drag, so they don't
> let the wheel spin real freely.
>
> A couple other tips, while I'm at it. By the time you get to 25 hours
> on your plane, re-check that large nut that holds the fork on. Mine
> needed to be tightened almost one full flat to the next castle stop, to
> retorque it after it took it's set. I think the spec is about 24lbs.
> pull of breakout force to rotate the nose at an angle.
>
> The second tip that I can't yet verify is fairing balance. To prevent
> shimmy, I've heard that a good idea is to balance your fairing. Since I
> had a little lead shot around, and I wanted this all to be perfect now,
> tonight I weighed out a little lead and taped it to the nose of the
> nosewheel fairing. I got it so that I could hold it where it mounts, in
> the centers of those 4 screw areas, and get it to be about neutrally
> balanced. Then I just took a little shot away, poured the rest into
> the nose of the fairing, and mixed a couple of squirts of epoxy. I
> poured the epoxy into the nose over the shot, put down one layer of
> cloth, and then a little more epoxy. By tomorrow that stuff won't be
> going anywhere, and I already re-checked the balance and it's now much
> less tail heavy, so maybe that will improve things too.
>
> ---
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - 107 hours Flying
>
>
>
> Wayne Edgerton wrote:
> > I'm currently building in Justin, TX in George Orndorff's hangar, he's
> > the one that makes the RV building videos and is also a Van's tech
> > center, and I was talking to him about this problem, wondering if I
> > needed to take some type of action on mine. His response to me on this
> > issue was that this was a quite common occurrence on the RV's. He said
> > the reason he believes it happens is that when the builder tightens down
> > the bolt holding on the bushing and tire that they tighten it down too
> > much. He said I should just tighten it down just until it's snug. Then
> > after flying it for 5 or 10 hours check it and retighten it. Do this
> > over the first 20 or 30 hours.
> >
> > I have a friend who is an A&P and also a DAR and I called him and ask
> > him the same question. He agreed with George. He said to tighten the
> > bolt down until a little grease comes out of the bearing and then back
> > it off a little and then keep an eye on it for awhile.
> >
> > This may not be the case on Tim's plane though?
> >
> > For what ever it's worth.
> >
> > Wayne Edgerton #40336
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>Glastar has this same issue. The difference is that they use a Cleveland
wheel that has seals like the main axels. They use an aluminum spacer
between the fork and the bearing (slipped over the axel) and then a small roll
pin in the fork that seats into a small slot on the spacer to stop rotation.</DIV>
<DIV>With the radius on the bearing that we have the only solution is to have a
spacer that has the same radius and a large surface area.</DIV>
<DIV>Another thing to try is to have a spacer inside the wheel on the axel so that
when you clamp up the whole assembly the inner race of both bearings are clamped
between the spacers and thus you can clamp the bearing race tight without
preloading the bearing excessively.</DIV>
<DIV>All in all not a great design from Van.</DIV>
<DIV>Gary</DIV>
<DIV>40274</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
<BR><BR>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson
<TIM@MYRV10.COM><BR>> <BR>> Wayne, for what it's worth, I really don't
think this will work <BR>> that way on the RV-10. I may be wrong, but I think
you really need <BR>> to tighten that thing well on this plane or you'll
REALLY have problems. <BR>> I'm betting that the assembly those guys are
familiar with isn't the <BR>> same thing as what we have. If you have any looseness,
you're going <BR>> to really screw up your axle. I just updated that
page....scroll <BR>> to the bottom to read tonights update. I got a little
long winded again <BR>> (surprise surprise), but I explained the axle and
rotation and other <BR>> things in a bit of depth. For you -10 builders,
that page is really <BR>> worth understanding, ju
st so
you can ponder it and know what's going <BR>> on there....even if you come to some other conclusion. (if you do, <BR>> let me know...I'd love to hear it, or hear exactly what the mechanics <BR>> are that George thinks would be better if it were looser) <BR>> <BR>> I'll post the text of tonights update here again, but you would be <BR>> much better served to just read it on the page, and see the latest <BR>> photos. This is just for the archive's sake. <BR>> <BR>> Here's the link again. <BR>> http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/maintenance/20060809/index.html <BR>> <BR>> --- <BR>> Today I stopped by a machine shop and had them take off about .115" off <BR>> my axle, to accomodate 2 AN970-6 washers on the outer edge. Yes, they <BR>> are .063 each, so .126" would have been the standard, but I wanted the <BR>> axle to be even just a little more snug than before, because any flexing <BR>> inward will bring that valve cap closer to the fo
rk. As
a side note, <BR>> this from John D. today...a note someone sent him: <BR>>
<BR>> "returned the nosewheel to Matco to have it replaced with WHLNW511.25
<BR>> which is correct for the valve stem on the tube and avoids the clearance
<BR>> problem with the supplies WHLNW501.25." <BR>> <BR>> In
other words, Van's is sending out the wrong wheel for the application <BR>>
on this plane...because they use this wheel for the RV-7's and such, and <BR>>
didn't want to have to stock 2 parts. So we get to receive the one that
<BR>> isn't made for the application, and therefore unless you swap wheels,
<BR>> you're going to have minimal valve stem clearance.....pretty nice, huh?
<BR>> <NOT><BR>> <BR>> Anyway, I had the axle cut shorter at a machine
shop, and then I just <BR>> had to guesstimate how much to take off the
2 spacers. Knowing they had <BR>> worn into a taper on the inside, to fit
against the bearing, I had them <BR>> only cut d
own by
.085" total. I did .035" on one side, and .050" on the <BR>> other. That way
I could have a slightly longer sleeve on the left side, <BR>> so my valve
stem had just that little extra clearance from the fork. <BR>> This brought
forth a small problem... Tonight when I assembled it as in <BR>> the first
photo below, it looked great. VERY much better than original. <BR>> Then,
when I put the whole wheel together, I found that the spacers <BR>> had worn
probably at least .120" because there was tons of slop in the <BR>> spacers
yet, even though they now had a nice flat surface to sit <BR>> between,
and had been cut less than the axle, and the washers were in <BR>> there to
fill in some space. The spacers just spun. So, I decided <BR>> since I already
ordered another axle, I'd take my bandsaw and VERY <BR>> carefully trim
off some more axle, and just use one more washer on the <BR>> left side.
That should keep that valve stem even FURTHER away.
If I <
BR>> was right, I could get it so there would be plenty of pressure on the <BR>>
bearings and spacers to hold them in place so they don't spin. Sure <BR>>
enough, it worked just great. I could now torque that bolt down tight <BR>>
and keep the spacers from spinning, and the bearing too. Just to be <BR>>
totally sure they never spun again, I drilled a couple of holes in the
<BR>> stainless spacers, and remounted it all. Then I made a pilot hole in
<BR>> the aluminum axle shaft, and took it all apart and tapped it for an 8-32
<BR>> screw on each spacer. Then I cleaned it up, regreased, and put it
all <BR>> together. Now it is very solid, and should never wear the fork <BR>>
again....I just am left with a crappy fork...so I'll probably just get
a <BR>> new one. Once my new spacers and axle come in, I may tear it all apart
<BR>> and use those pieces, but I'll still probably cut the axle and spacers
<BR>> down and use the washers on the outer
ends.
It will prevent your forks <BR>> from being the sacrificial component. The
bearing, for future <BR>> reference, is a Timken LM-6700-LA (I think that's
right, but I'll <BR>> re-check tomorrow) <BR>> <BR>> A note about tightening
the axle nut... Tonight on the RV-10 list, <BR>> someone said that
George Orndorff (A Van's tech center place), says that <BR>> the bolt should
only be snugged, and then rechecked often in the first <BR>> few hours.
I don't personally believe this is true on the RV-10, but <BR>> perhaps it
is on the other models. Here's why. I studied this long <BR>> and hard, and
now I fully understand why this is such a huge freaking <BR>> issue. It didn't
make sense at first, having worked on dozens and <BR>> dozens of automotive
bearings in the past. You see, on automotive apps, <BR>> the bearings
are pressed in on the backside, and a nut and washer holds <BR>> the bearing
tight. But it pushes against a different area of t
he <BR
>> bearing. And the grease seal is usually a seal that is pressed into the <BR>>
hub, with a seal around the shaft on the ID of the seal. This is NOT <BR>>
how these bearings are on this application. On THIS application, you <BR>>
are expecting that the sleeves, the axle, the bolt, AND the inner race
<BR>> area of the bearing do not ever rotate. The problem is, if these <BR>>
bearings were a tight knurled, or press fit onto that axle shaft, it <BR>>
might be easy to keep them from rotating by just not letting the shaft <BR>>
spin. But, what happens here is that the grease seal is a large seal <BR>>
that the wheel spins around....so the seal is on the OD of the bearing
<BR>> in this case. That's why my stinking seals were so torn when the wheel
<BR>> wobbled. The kicker to the problem is, if you don't have the spacers
<BR>> very tight against the bearing, there's not enough force to keep the
<BR>> bearing from turning on the shaft. If the
beari
ng spins on the axle <BR>> shaft, then it's becoming USELESS as a bearing. At
that point, you're <BR>> using the aluminum axle as the bushing, and the
wheel is rolling by <BR>> spinning the hard steel bearing race against your
soft aluminum axle <BR>> shaft.....instead of turning the roller bearings
inside of the wheel's <BR>> outer race. The seal itself has a lot of drag against
the wheel as it <BR>> spins, and this drag will make it so that the
wheel tries REALLY hard to <BR>> make the bearing spin. As it turns out, if
you don't have tight <BR>> spacers, it's really easy to get that bearing spinning.
And once the <BR>> bearing is spinning, the spacers stuffed right
up against it will spin <BR>> too. And once they start spinning, they'll spin
against the fork. If <BR>> you have the stainless ones like me, they'll
ABSOLUTELY then start <BR>> carving into your forks. If you have the new and
improved thick <BR>> aluminum ones (that I can't
comme
nt firmly on because I haven't seen <BR>> them), then they would have more surface
area against both the bearing <BR>> and the fork....so on one hand the
bearing will try to turn it harder, <BR>> but the fork will prevent it harder
as well. To me, this is STILL <BR>> going to be a less than ideal situation
until you PREVENT the spacers <BR>> from turning, and you PROTECT the
forks from being worn if they do turn. <BR>> The lock screws I put in should
keep the spacers still. The washers <BR>> will protect the forks. The one
further improvement that would be <BR>> simple would be to drill a tiny
hole in the fork on one side, that <BR>> drills into the aluminum axle, and
then tap for a small hex head <BR>> internal setscrew lock, so that you could
pin the axle from rotating at <BR>> all too. Beyond that, the only real
improvement I could think of is if <BR>> you could find a way to either press-fit,
or hold that inner bearing <BR>> from tur
ning o
n the axle. Perhaps knurling it, epoxy, a small keyway <BR>> and shear key,
or something like that would be the ticket. If you've <BR>> done all of the
other steps, and have tight spacers, you probably <BR>> wouldn't have any
huge issues from that point. <BR>> <BR>> The worst thing about it is that
no matter what you do, you really don't <BR>> have independent control over
how tight the bearings are <BR>> seated...separate from how tight the axle
bolts are and how long the <BR>> spacers are. Just to let you know how this
all ends up the way I have <BR>> it tonight, the wheel will not continue
rolling if you spin it by hand. <BR>> I don't think it's too tight from a
bearing perspective, but the <BR>> grease seals against the wheel hub provide
a lot of drag, so they don't <BR>> let the wheel spin real freely. <BR>>
<BR>> A couple other tips, while I'm at it. By the time you get to 25
hours <BR>> on your plane, re-check that large nut
that
holds the fork on. Mine <BR>> needed to be tightened almost one full flat to
the next castle stop, to <BR>> retorque it after it took it's set. I think
the spec is about 24lbs. <BR>> pull of breakout force to rotate the nose at
an angle. <BR>> <BR>> The second tip that I can't yet verify is fairing
balance. To prevent <BR>> shimmy, I've heard that a good idea is to balance
your fairing. Since I <BR>> had a little lead shot around, and I wanted
this all to be perfect now, <BR>> tonight I weighed out a little lead and taped
it to the nose of the <BR>> nosewheel fairing. I got it so that I could
hold it where it mounts, in <BR>> the centers of those 4 screw areas, and
get it to be about neutrally <BR>> balanced. Then I just took a little shot
away, poured the rest into <BR>> the nose of the fairing, and mixed a couple
of squirts of epoxy. I <BR>> poured the epoxy into the nose over the shot,
put down one layer of <BR>> cloth, and then a
little
more epoxy. By tomorrow that stuff won't be <BR>> going anywhere, and I already
re-checked the balance and it's now much <BR>> less tail heavy, so maybe
that will improve things too. <BR>> <BR>> --- <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - 107 hours Flying <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Wayne Edgerton wrote: <BR>> > I'm currently building in Justin, TX
in George Orndorff's hangar, he's <BR>> > the one that makes the RV building
videos and is also a Van's tech <BR>> > center, and I was talking
to him about this problem, wondering if I <BR>> > needed to take some type
of action on mine. His response to me on this <BR>> > issue was that
this was a quite common occurrence on the RV's. He said <BR>> > the reason
he believes it happens is that when the builder tightens down <BR>> >
the bolt holding on the bushing and tire that they tighten it down too <BR>>
> much. He said I should just tighten it down j
ust un
Downl
BR>>
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: | Front Axle Reference Info |
Since some of us are visual people and might not have this part of the
kit yet, attached is the manual illustration of the front wheel attach
for reference.
Tim: along the lines of your set screw suggestion, somebody also
suggested drilling a hole through the nose fork, match drilling into the
axle, and installing a flat head screw to keep the axle from spinning.
This, along with your screws through the spacers/axles would seem to
guarantee the stability of the assembly and eliminate the need for the
washers (and associated trimming). Thoughts?
Bob
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Perihelion design has a white led retrofit for the Whelen A555 tail lamp
it is for the position lamp only and not the strobe. See it here
<http://www.periheliondesign.com/ledlights.htm>. It is pricey at $139
and you still need the Whelen A555.
Larry Rosen
#356
Sean Blair wrote:
>
> Okay..another one. I plan to install LED position lighting. Any
> recommendations? Ill be using a 12 volt system.
>
> Is there a 12 volt LED strobe available? I see Whelen has one, but
> its a 24 volt.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Sean Blair
>
> #40225
>
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: Front Axle Reference Info |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Exactly. I think if you did a proper placement of a set screw from
the fork outside, you could drill into both the spacer and the
axle simultaneously, which would keep them both from turning and
then you wouldn't need the 2 screws I did. I just did this because
I have a whole set of new parts coming and didn't yet want to drill
my already compromised fork...since I have that groove worn into
them. I'm not as confident adding one more hole. If I had brand
new forks, I would have absolutely done it...but not until I've
seen the new spacer.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote:
> Since some of us are visual people and might not have this part of the
> kit yet, attached is the manual illustration of the front wheel attach
> for reference.
>
> Tim: along the lines of your set screw suggestion, somebody also
> suggested drilling a hole through the nose fork, match drilling into the
> axle, and installing a flat head screw to keep the axle from spinning.
> This, along with your screws through the spacers/axles would seem to
> guarantee the stability of the assembly and eliminate the need for the
> washers (and associated trimming). Thoughts?
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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: | Front Axle Reference Info |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Thanks Bob, I should have looked for the reference diagram in the first
place. This is just messed up on a couple of levels. Tim is definitely
right, without something to lock everything in place, and let the
bearings do their job, something is going to wear eventually. Throw in
dissimilar metal hardness's and it's going to happen a lot faster.
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Buildus Interuptus due to moving
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Condrey, Bob
(US SSA)
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Front Axle Reference Info
Since some of us are visual people and might not have this part of the
kit yet, attached is the manual illustration of the front wheel attach
for reference.
Tim: along the lines of your set screw suggestion, somebody also
suggested drilling a hole through the nose fork, match drilling into the
axle, and installing a flat head screw to keep the axle from spinning.
This, along with your screws through the spacers/axles would seem to
guarantee the stability of the assembly and eliminate the need for the
washers (and associated trimming). Thoughts?
Bob
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: | Front Axle Reference Info |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
Just talked with Vans - apparently the new aluminum spacer part number
is U-1023, not sure what the original stainless steel spacer part number
was. They said aluminum version has been shipping in finish kits for a
little while now. They are sending me a pair of the aluminum spacers at
no charge. Nobody seems to know why a letter or service bulletin
wasn't issued.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Front Axle Reference Info
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Exactly. I think if you did a proper placement of a set screw from
the fork outside, you could drill into both the spacer and the
axle simultaneously, which would keep them both from turning and
then you wouldn't need the 2 screws I did. I just did this because
I have a whole set of new parts coming and didn't yet want to drill
my already compromised fork...since I have that groove worn into
them. I'm not as confident adding one more hole. If I had brand
new forks, I would have absolutely done it...but not until I've
seen the new spacer.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote:
> Since some of us are visual people and might not have this part of the
> kit yet, attached is the manual illustration of the front wheel attach
> for reference.
>
> Tim: along the lines of your set screw suggestion, somebody also
> suggested drilling a hole through the nose fork, match drilling into
the
> axle, and installing a flat head screw to keep the axle from spinning.
> This, along with your screws through the spacers/axles would seem to
> guarantee the stability of the assembly and eliminate the need for the
> washers (and associated trimming). Thoughts?
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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: Front Axle Reference Info |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Jay Wik <jwik@crary.com>
In our business we have a lot of assemblies with dual bearing
applications. High speed rotor fans and chipper rotors, but also some
low rpm wheel hubs.
Our experience is that the best solution to all related problems with
shafts and bearings, is if the bearing races are trapped on both
sides and the stack up of spacers inside and outside of the bearings
are loaded so the races and spacers have no inclination to rotate.
Rather than an internal spacer we would typically machine a internal
step on the shaft (Axle).
The spacer or step on the inside might be a problem in standardizing if
there is much variability in wheels. It would be a better approach than
a spacer however if the wheel hub doesn't provide enough dimension for a
separate spacer becaus it doesen't take much of a step to effectively
stop the race.
The difficulty with a set screw or bolt, could be one of structural
integrity, but maybe even more so getting the perfect positioning of
those holes. you can still end up with too much play or too much
pre-load on the bearings.
Tim Olson wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> Exactly. I think if you did a proper placement of a set screw from
> the fork outside, you could drill into both the spacer and the
> axle simultaneously, which would keep them both from turning and
> then you wouldn't need the 2 screws I did. I just did this because
> I have a whole set of new parts coming and didn't yet want to drill
> my already compromised fork...since I have that groove worn into
> them. I'm not as confident adding one more hole. If I had brand
> new forks, I would have absolutely done it...but not until I've
> seen the new spacer.
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>
>
> Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote:
>> Since some of us are visual people and might not have this part of the
>> kit yet, attached is the manual illustration of the front wheel attach
>> for reference.
>>
>> Tim: along the lines of your set screw suggestion, somebody also
>> suggested drilling a hole through the nose fork, match drilling into the
>> axle, and installing a flat head screw to keep the axle from spinning.
>> This, along with your screws through the spacers/axles would seem to
>> guarantee the stability of the assembly and eliminate the need for the
>> washers (and associated trimming). Thoughts?
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
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: Front Axle Reference Info |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
The old part number was the same, U-1023....they just changed the
piece that they were sending from thin stainless to thick
aluminum. I haven't seen the new parts first-hand yet, but
I understand that they are shipping new kits with the new ones.
Me being kit # 170, and only 42 flying right now though, point to
the fact that there will be at least 130 people affected.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>
> Just talked with Vans - apparently the new aluminum spacer part number
> is U-1023, not sure what the original stainless steel spacer part number
> was. They said aluminum version has been shipping in finish kits for a
> little while now. They are sending me a pair of the aluminum spacers at
> no charge. Nobody seems to know why a letter or service bulletin
> wasn't issued.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 10:16 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Front Axle Reference Info
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> Exactly. I think if you did a proper placement of a set screw from
> the fork outside, you could drill into both the spacer and the
> axle simultaneously, which would keep them both from turning and
> then you wouldn't need the 2 screws I did. I just did this because
> I have a whole set of new parts coming and didn't yet want to drill
> my already compromised fork...since I have that groove worn into
> them. I'm not as confident adding one more hole. If I had brand
> new forks, I would have absolutely done it...but not until I've
> seen the new spacer.
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>
>
>
> Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote:
>> Since some of us are visual people and might not have this part of the
>> kit yet, attached is the manual illustration of the front wheel attach
>> for reference.
>>
>> Tim: along the lines of your set screw suggestion, somebody also
>> suggested drilling a hole through the nose fork, match drilling into
> the
>> axle, and installing a flat head screw to keep the axle from spinning.
>> This, along with your screws through the spacers/axles would seem to
>> guarantee the stability of the assembly and eliminate the need for the
>> washers (and associated trimming). Thoughts?
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Front Axle Reference Info |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
You point out one of the flaws I saw with my current fix, that
I saw before I did it. If you pin the spacers to the axle
with screws like I did, you need to ensure that the spacers
would still be able to be tightened on the bearing, and
that means you'd have to tighten the assembly before inserting
the screws, because the spacers will move until you're done
torquing the axle bolt. This means the hole in the spacer
side will probably have to be a pretty loose fit. So it
is far from perfect. Attacked from the outside of the fork
it would be better. And you're right, things won't rotate
until there is some severe rotational load, and at that point
those screws could snap....of course, at that point your
spacers are spinning again too, so you have bigger problems.
Structural integrity is a big one, but on this particular
spacer and axle, there isn't really anything being stressed
that would crack. Drilling through the fork though would
be one to think about thoroughly to make sure you consider
the forces involved...that's why I am hesitant to drill
mine that are already possibly weakened.
You absolutely have the right points though in your
first couple of paragraphs....ideally we'd trap the
races, and have stepped shafts. I would think that
this wouldn't be too hard to do. With luck maybe
we'll either see a future change from Vans, or we'll
see someone like Mike at Cleaveland come up with an
entire retrofit kit that will provide a better solution.
I will be satisfied when I am assured I'll never wreck
another fork and can hopefully keep the inner bearing
race from spinning...at that point I hope my nosewheel
sees so much more air time than ground time that
it just lasts as long as the plane does.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jay Wik wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jay Wik <jwik@crary.com>
>
> In our business we have a lot of assemblies with dual bearing
> applications. High speed rotor fans and chipper rotors, but also some
> low rpm wheel hubs.
> Our experience is that the best solution to all related problems with
> shafts and bearings, is if the bearing races are trapped on both
> sides and the stack up of spacers inside and outside of the bearings
> are loaded so the races and spacers have no inclination to rotate.
> Rather than an internal spacer we would typically machine a internal
> step on the shaft (Axle). The spacer or step on the inside might be a
> problem in standardizing if there is much variability in wheels. It
> would be a better approach than a spacer however if the wheel hub
> doesn't provide enough dimension for a separate spacer becaus it
> doesen't take much of a step to effectively stop the race.
>
> The difficulty with a set screw or bolt, could be one of structural
> integrity, but maybe even more so getting the perfect positioning of
> those holes. you can still end up with too much play or too much
> pre-load on the bearings.
>
>
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>>
>> Exactly. I think if you did a proper placement of a set screw from
>> the fork outside, you could drill into both the spacer and the
>> axle simultaneously, which would keep them both from turning and
>> then you wouldn't need the 2 screws I did. I just did this because
>> I have a whole set of new parts coming and didn't yet want to drill
>> my already compromised fork...since I have that groove worn into
>> them. I'm not as confident adding one more hole. If I had brand
>> new forks, I would have absolutely done it...but not until I've
>> seen the new spacer.
>>
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>>
>>
>>
>> Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote:
>>> Since some of us are visual people and might not have this part of the
>>> kit yet, attached is the manual illustration of the front wheel attach
>>> for reference.
>>>
>>> Tim: along the lines of your set screw suggestion, somebody also
>>> suggested drilling a hole through the nose fork, match drilling into the
>>> axle, and installing a flat head screw to keep the axle from spinning.
>>> This, along with your screws through the spacers/axles would seem to
>>> guarantee the stability of the assembly and eliminate the need for the
>>> washers (and associated trimming). Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the RV-10 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy@abros.com>
If the axle spins you have serious problems. You have to have the yoke
tight enough to hold the axle tight. The extra length of the spacers is
only enough so the bearings have a slight preload. The axle must be
locked by the yoke. As Tim has confirmed the axle was not spinning just
the outer spacer. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 4:41 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the
RV-10
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Yeah, but not until I get all the new parts and see them.
That's one hole I'll "drill once".
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
ddddsp1@juno.com wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Are you planning to drill thru the fork into the axle and TAP it with
a
> contersunk screw to keep the axle from turning like you did to the
> spacer? I am thinking it would be easy to do and would eliminate the
> axle from turning even if the wheel got loose.
>
> Dean
>
> Getting engine today.
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Front Axle Reference Info |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
Tim,
Actually it's a little more complicated than that. Kit numbers only
reflect where you were in line when you ordered the tail kit. Any other
kit would be dependent on the date it was shipped from Van's. I didn't
ask exactly when they started shipping the new version of U-1023.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Front Axle Reference Info
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
The old part number was the same, U-1023....they just changed the
piece that they were sending from thin stainless to thick
aluminum. I haven't seen the new parts first-hand yet, but
I understand that they are shipping new kits with the new ones.
Me being kit # 170, and only 42 flying right now though, point to
the fact that there will be at least 130 people affected.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
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: | Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the RV-10 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
There are thousands of production planes with front forks, obviously. What
do these look like relative to the problem? This cannot be a unique issue
that hasn't been solved years, decades ago.
John J
Tailcone
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy DeBauw
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 9:34 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the RV-10
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy@abros.com>
If the axle spins you have serious problems. You have to have the yoke tight
enough to hold the axle tight. The extra length of the spacers is only
enough so the bearings have a slight preload. The axle must be locked by the
yoke. As Tim has confirmed the axle was not spinning just the outer spacer.
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 4:41 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the RV-10
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Yeah, but not until I get all the new parts and see them.
That's one hole I'll "drill once".
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
ddddsp1@juno.com wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Are you planning to drill thru the fork into the axle and TAP it with
a
> contersunk screw to keep the axle from turning like you did to the
> spacer? I am thinking it would be easy to do and would eliminate the
> axle from turning even if the wheel got loose.
>
> Dean
>
> Getting engine today.
>
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: Front Axle Reference Info |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Ah yes, I forgot about that. You're absolutely right.
Tim
do not archive
Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>
> Tim,
>
> Actually it's a little more complicated than that. Kit numbers only
> reflect where you were in line when you ordered the tail kit. Any other
> kit would be dependent on the date it was shipped from Van's. I didn't
> ask exactly when they started shipping the new version of U-1023.
>
> Bob
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: Front Axle Reference Info |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
I just spoke to Van's and they switched to aluminum early in the finish kit
shipments so check your spacers before calling.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 9:52 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Front Axle Reference Info
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)"
> <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>
> Tim,
>
> Actually it's a little more complicated than that. Kit numbers only
> reflect where you were in line when you ordered the tail kit. Any other
> kit would be dependent on the date it was shipped from Van's. I didn't
> ask exactly when they started shipping the new version of U-1023.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:19 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Front Axle Reference Info
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> The old part number was the same, U-1023....they just changed the
> piece that they were sending from thin stainless to thick
> aluminum. I haven't seen the new parts first-hand yet, but
> I understand that they are shipping new kits with the new ones.
> Me being kit # 170, and only 42 flying right now though, point to
> the fact that there will be at least 130 people affected.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Front Axle Reference Info |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
Well, we've got a good "forum" topic for our first RV-10 fly-in
gathering! : )
TDT
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Front Axle Reference Info
--> RV10-List message posted by: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
I just spoke to Van's and they switched to aluminum early in the finish
kit
shipments so check your spacers before calling.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 9:52 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Front Axle Reference Info
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)"
> <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>
> Tim,
>
> Actually it's a little more complicated than that. Kit numbers only
> reflect where you were in line when you ordered the tail kit. Any
other
> kit would be dependent on the date it was shipped from Van's. I
didn't
> ask exactly when they started shipping the new version of U-1023.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:19 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Front Axle Reference Info
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> The old part number was the same, U-1023....they just changed the
> piece that they were sending from thin stainless to thick
> aluminum. I haven't seen the new parts first-hand yet, but
> I understand that they are shipping new kits with the new ones.
> Me being kit # 170, and only 42 flying right now though, point to
> the fact that there will be at least 130 people affected.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
>
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: | Important documents worth filing |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Two of the six participants on the Task force panel are from Oregon.
Joe Bartels, Lancair kit built factory owner (prepregs from the
Philippines) and considered complex with Factory Builder Assist and Dick
VanGrunsven with a finger in the pie of Quick build with Foreign
National labour outsourcing. Now if Rick Schrameck is on the committee
there should be some real progress closing the loopholes of builders who
go beyond building #3 and into production. Wouldn't it be great if one
of the others was Burt Rutan and the sky would be the limit for all
EAAers.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Important documents worth filing
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Wow, that AC20-27F definitely lays it out....it actually makes it
a slight worry that if you go all Quickbuild you might be pushing
the limits....although "entirely" makes it a little more of a stretch
though.
The black and white though: "You hired someone to build the aircraft
for you, and hiring this person means you did not fabricate and
assemble the major portion of the aircraft......Not Eligible"
I didn't read these fully yet though to see the full impact of the
changes.
Hey, while we're on the subject, does anyone want to buy a REALLY
quickbuild Quick-Build kit?
Check this out:
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motors/Aircraft/auction-65732906.htm
You too can own an RV-10 and barely touch a tool. The info I got
from the person who sent me the link is that they've seen
this up close and the workmanship is pretty poor on some items,
and fair on some. Anyway, this would be a bit tricky to get
amateur certified in the US I'd bet. The cost would make a fairly
expensive RV-10 in the end too, considering the things left out.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John W. Cox wrote:
> Here are a set of FAA documents that those still building might find
> valuable. Those flying please disregard. They will change with the
> September recommendations of the Task Force.
>
> The 8130.2F has just been revised.
>
_http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/
0/9A00207837D6A395862571A8005B0BBD?OpenDocument_
>
> Here is the AC20-27F.
>
_http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCir
cular.nsf/0/0CA2845E2AAFFFBB86256DBF00640CB2?OpenDocument_
>
> John Cox
>
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: Front Axle Reference Info |
I tried to order the spacers from Van's just now. they insisted that they only
shipped out very few stainless spacers before they switched. thus they wanted
to charge me for the new ones. It took some talking to convince her that even
though the part # were the same I had the SS ones.
Left Hand meet Right hand
Gary
40274
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "David McNeill"
>
> I just spoke to Van's and they switched to aluminum early in the finish kit
> shipments so check your spacers before calling.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 9:52 AM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Front Axle Reference Info
>
>
> > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)"
> >
> >
> > Tim,
> >
> > Actually it's a little more complicated than that. Kit numbers only
> > reflect where you were in line when you ordered the tail kit. Any other
> > kit would be dependent on the date it was shipped from Van's. I didn't
> > ask exactly when they started shipping the new version of U-1023.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:19 AM
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Front Axle Reference Info
> >
> > --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson
> >
> > The old part number was the same, U-1023....they just changed the
> > piece that they were sending from thin stainless to thick
> > aluminum. I haven't seen the new parts first-hand yet, but
> > I understand that they are shipping new kits with the new ones.
> > Me being kit # 170, and only 42 flying right now though, point to
> > the fact that there will be at least 130 people affected.
> >
> > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>I tried to order the spacers from Van's just now. they insisted that
they only shipped out very few stainless spacers before they switched.
thus they wanted to charge me for the new ones. It took some talking to
convince her that even though the part # were the same I had the SS ones.</DIV>
<DIV>Left Hand meet Right hand</DIV>
<DIV>Gary</DIV>
<DIV>40274</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "David McNeill"
<dlm46007@cox.net> <BR><BR>> --> RV10-List message posted by:
"David McNeill" <DLM46007@COX.NET><BR>> <BR>> I just spoke to Van's and
they switched to aluminum early in the finish kit <BR>> shipments so check
your spacers before calling. <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From:
"Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <BOB.CONDREY@BAESYSTEMS.COM><BR>> To: <RV10-LIST@MATRONICS.COM><BR>>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 9:52 AM <BR>> Subject:
RE: RV10-List: Front Axle Reference Info <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > -->
RV10-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <BR>> > <BOB.CONDREY@BAESYSTEMS.COM><BR>>
> <BR>> > Tim, <BR>> > <BR>>
> Actually it's a little more complicated than that. Kit numbers only <BR>>
> reflect where you were in line when you orde
red th
e tail kit. Any other <BR>> > kit would be dependent on the date it was shipped from Van's. I didn't <BR>> > ask exactly when they started shipping the new version of U-1023. <BR>> > <BR>> > Bob <BR>> > <BR>> > -----Original Message----- <BR>> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com <BR>> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson <BR>> > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:19 AM <BR>> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com <BR>> > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Front Axle Reference Info <BR>> > <BR>> > --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <TIM@MYRV10.COM><BR>> > <BR>> > The old part number was the same, U-1023....they just changed the <BR>> > piece that they were sending from thin stainless to thick <BR>> > aluminum. I haven't seen the new parts first-hand yet, but <BR>> > I understand that they are shipping new kits with the new ones. <BR>> &
gt; Me
=====
BLOCKQ
UOTE></body></html>
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: | Front Axle Reference Info |
I have 40355 and still the SS spacers, they are no good!
Henkjan van der Zouw!
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] Namens
speckter@comcast.net
Verzonden: vrijdag 11 augustus 2006 19:57
Aan: rv10-list@matronics.com
Onderwerp: Re: RV10-List: Front Axle Reference Info
I tried to order the spacers from Van's just now. they insisted that
they only shipped out very few stainless spacers before they switched.
thus they wanted to charge me for the new ones. It took some talking to
convince her that even though the part # were the same I had the SS
ones.
Left Hand meet Right hand
Gary
40274
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "David McNeill"
>
> I just spoke to Van's and they switched to aluminum early in the
finish kit
> shipments so check your spacers before calling.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 9:52 AM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Front Axle Reference Info
>
>
> > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)"
> >
> >
> > Tim,
> >
> > Actually it's a little more complicated than that. Kit numbers only
> > reflect where you were in line when you orde red th e tail kit. Any
other
> > kit would be dependent on the date it was shipped from Van's. I
didn't
> > ask exactly when they started shipping the new version of U-1023.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:19 AM
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Front Axle Reference Info
> >
> > --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson
> >
> > The old part number was the same, U-1023....they just changed the
> > piece that they were sending from thin stainless to thick
> > aluminum. I haven't seen the new parts first-hand yet, but
> > I understand that they are shipping new kits with the new ones.
> & gt; Me ====== BLOCKQ UOTE>
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: Front Axle Reference Info |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Perhaps a few people can identify when they got their Finishing kit,
and we can figure out the approximate timeframe from that.
Mine was I think March or April 2005 if I remember right, so
at least at that point they were SS.
Anyone get their finishing kit last year in August care to pipe in?
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Henkjan van der Zouw wrote:
> I have 40355 and still the SS spacers, they are no good!
>
>
>
> Henkjan van der Zouw!
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: IO-540 Hose kit -possible group buy |
--- 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 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: | Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution |
I just found out that Matco will exchange the stock nose wheel that
Van's supplies with a different version that provides about 5/8"
clearance from the fork. If you haven't yet mounted a tire on it they
will do this for only the cost of shipping!
If you have already mounted the tire they say you will likely mar the
wheel removing the tire and therefore it can't be sold as new. They can
however sell you a new "valve half", re-machine the back half and reuse
the same bearings for about $55. Since you ship them the stock rim they
can evaluate and if you were careful enough they'll just do the
exchange. Cost to purchase a complete wheel outright is about $125.
I have never been very happy about the valve stem clearance so I'm going
to exchange mine while waiting for the new U-1023 spacers to come from
Van's and take care of everything at once.
Thanks to Dean Sombke for this tip! Hopefully others will take
advantage of this offer from Matco before mounting the tire on their
nosewheel.
Bob
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: | Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution |
What exactly are they changing out? Is it the tire, rim, or both? Any
specific contact name or secret handshake? Man I need to get moved and
order my finish kit so I can see what everyone is talking about again!
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Buildus Interuptus due to moving
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 Condrey, Bob
(US SSA)
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 4:37 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution
I just found out that Matco will exchange the stock nose wheel that
Van's supplies with a different version that provides about 5/8"
clearance from the fork. If you haven't yet mounted a tire on it they
will do this for only the cost of shipping!
If you have already mounted the tire they say you will likely mar the
wheel removing the tire and therefore it can't be sold as new. They can
however sell you a new "valve half", re-machine the back half and reuse
the same bearings for about $55. Since you ship them the stock rim they
can evaluate and if you were careful enough they'll just do the
exchange. Cost to purchase a complete wheel outright is about $125.
I have never been very happy about the valve stem clearance so I'm going
to exchange mine while waiting for the new U-1023 spacers to come from
Van's and take care of everything at once.
Thanks to Dean Sombke for this tip! Hopefully others will take
advantage of this offer from Matco before mounting the tire on their
nosewheel.
Bob
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: | Re: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution |
Who is your contact at Matco?
Cal
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Condrey, Bob (US SSA)
To: RV10-List@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 5:37 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution
I just found out that Matco will exchange the stock nose wheel that
Van's supplies with a different version that provides about 5/8"
clearance from the fork. If you haven't yet mounted a tire on it they
will do this for only the cost of shipping!
If you have already mounted the tire they say you will likely mar the
wheel removing the tire and therefore it can't be sold as new. They can
however sell you a new "valve half", re-machine the back half and reuse
the same bearings for about $55. Since you ship them the stock rim they
can evaluate and if you were careful enough they'll just do the
exchange. Cost to purchase a complete wheel outright is about $125.
I have never been very happy about the valve stem clearance so I'm
going to exchange mine while waiting for the new U-1023 spacers to come
from Van's and take care of everything at once.
Thanks to Dean Sombke for this tip! Hopefully others will take
advantage of this offer from Matco before mounting the tire on their
nosewheel.
Bob
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: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
Just ask for parts
Bob
--------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
Sent: Fri Aug 11 15:30:24 2006
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution
Who is your contact at Matco?
Cal
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Condrey, Bob (US SSA) <mailto:bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 5:37 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution
I just found out that Matco will exchange the stock nose wheel that Vans supplies
with a different version that provides about 5/8 clearance from the fork.
If you havent yet mounted a tire on it they will do this for only the cost of
shipping!
If you have already mounted the tire they say you will likely mar the wheel removing
the tire and therefore it cant be sold as new. They can however sell you
a new valve half, re-machine the back half and reuse the same bearings for about
$55. Since you ship them the stock rim they can evaluate and if you were
careful enough theyll just do the exchange. Cost to purchase a complete wheel
outright is about $125.
I have never been very happy about the valve stem clearance so Im going to exchange
mine while waiting for the new U-1023 spacers to come from Vans and take
care of everything at once.
Thanks to Dean Sombke for this tip! Hopefully others will take advantage of this
offer from Matco before mounting the tire on their nosewheel.
Bob
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
They are changing out the wheel assembly. You use thef stock tune and tire
When I called they transferred me to parts and the guy that answered knew exactly
what I had and what I needed. Just tell them you're calling about the RV10
nose wheel
Bob
--------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
Sent: Fri Aug 11 15:18:15 2006
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution
What exactly are they changing out? Is it the tire, rim, or both? Any specific
contact name or secret handshake? Man I need to get moved and order my finish
kit so I can see what everyone is talking about again!
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Buildus Interuptus due to moving
Do Not Archive
<http://www.mykitlog.com/display_project.php?project_id=22> Recent RV-10 Build Activity
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Condrey, Bob (US SSA)
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 4:37 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution
I just found out that Matco will exchange the stock nose wheel that Vans supplies
with a different version that provides about 5/8 clearance from the fork.
If you havent yet mounted a tire on it they will do this for only the cost of
shipping!
If you have already mounted the tire they say you will likely mar the wheel removing
the tire and therefore it cant be sold as new. They can however sell you
a new valve half, re-machine the back half and reuse the same bearings for about
$55. Since you ship them the stock rim they can evaluate and if you were
careful enough theyll just do the exchange. Cost to purchase a complete wheel
outright is about $125.
I have never been very happy about the valve stem clearance so Im going to exchange
mine while waiting for the new U-1023 spacers to come from Vans and take
care of everything at once.
Thanks to Dean Sombke for this tip! Hopefully others will take advantage of this
offer from Matco before mounting the tire on their nosewheel.
Bob
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: | Re: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution |
you can search the list for a name and phone number that I provided
when I exchanged mine about six months ago.
----- Original Message -----
From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen)
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 3:18 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution
What exactly are they changing out? Is it the tire, rim, or both?
Any specific contact name or secret handshake? Man I need to get moved
and order my finish kit so I can see what everyone is talking about
again!
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Buildus Interuptus due to moving
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 Condrey, Bob
(US SSA)
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 4:37 PM
To: RV10-List@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Nose Wheel Valve Clearance Solution
I just found out that Matco will exchange the stock nose wheel that
Van's supplies with a different version that provides about 5/8"
clearance from the fork. If you haven't yet mounted a tire on it they
will do this for only the cost of shipping!
If you have already mounted the tire they say you will likely mar the
wheel removing the tire and therefore it can't be sold as new. They can
however sell you a new "valve half", re-machine the back half and reuse
the same bearings for about $55. Since you ship them the stock rim they
can evaluate and if you were careful enough they'll just do the
exchange. Cost to purchase a complete wheel outright is about $125.
I have never been very happy about the valve stem clearance so I'm
going to exchange mine while waiting for the new U-1023 spacers to come
from Van's and take care of everything at once.
Thanks to Dean Sombke for this tip! Hopefully others will take
advantage of this offer from Matco before mounting the tire on their
nosewheel.
Bob
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 |
|
following info taken from the archive 3/16/2006
The name , IIRC, was same as someone posted. He is the Van's rep at
Matco.
550 West 3615 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84115 USA
(801) 486-7574
(801) 486-7581 Fax
tech(at)MATCOmfg.com
you will need to call for RMA.
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "bcondrey" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
My finish kit is from was crated 11/05/05 and had the stainless steel U-1023.
BOb
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54265#54265
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: | Overhead Console |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Jay <jss165@yahoo.com>
Another good place to find auto salvage parts is
www.car-part.com This is a searchable database of
salvage parts for just about any automobile you can
think of.
__________________________________________________
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! --
|