Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:18 AM - Re: Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the RV-10 (Wayne Edgerton)
2. 04:25 AM - Re: Build times - time to get restarted? (Wayne Edgerton)
3. 05:28 AM - Re: OT: IFR Training With Six-Pack or G1000? (GRANSCOTT@AOL.COM)
4. 06:56 AM - Re: Jacks (Was Serious Front Axle...) (James K Hovis)
5. 07:25 AM - Re: OT: IFR Training With Six-Pack or G1000? (Sean Stephens)
6. 07:55 AM - (Scott Keadle)
7. 08:27 AM - Re: OT: IFR Training With Six-Pack or G1000? (Tim Olson)
8. 08:27 AM - Re: Build times - time to get restarted? (Tim Olson)
9. 09:33 AM - So Cal Builders (James K Hovis)
10. 09:37 AM - Re: So Cal Builders (James K Hovis)
11. 10:03 AM - Re: GM LS2 Engine - opinions (jdalton77)
12. 10:11 AM - Re: Re: So Cal Builders (Chris Johnston)
13. 10:37 AM - Servicing air in the tires (Wayne Edgerton)
14. 01:33 PM - panel access (David McNeill)
15. 02:43 PM - Re: Servicing air in the tires (Mark Ritter)
16. 02:59 PM - Re: Servicing air in the tires (Mike Lauritsen - Work)
17. 05:51 PM - Re: Servicing air in the tires (Roger Standley)
18. 05:57 PM - Re: panel access (Roger Standley)
19. 06:27 PM - Re: panel access (David McNeill)
20. 06:51 PM - Re: Can and RV-10 be insured for two-seats only? (Chris)
21. 07:25 PM - Re: Re: So Cal Builders (Niko Napoli)
22. 11:35 PM - Re: Can and RV-10 be insured for two-seats only? (ScottA)
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: Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the RV-10 |
Hi Bob - I saw this lift type thing the other day that might do the
trick.
http://www.rvtraining.com/html/handy_jack.html
Wayne Edgerton #40336
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: Build times - time to get restarted? |
I'm obviously not understanding something. A person will make a posting
and at the bottom of the posting it will say
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=56714#56714
which will be the same thing that I just read but in a little different
format. What is the purpose of this, to post to two different sites?
Wayne Edgerton # 40336
do not archive
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OT: IFR Training With Six-Pack or G1000? |
Sean I've got about 75 hours flying behind a G 1000, the only thing I would
say is that if you learn and take the test on the EFIS style products I don't
believe you'll be the greatest if you ever go to the basic 6 pack to fly
instruments as the pilot will need to see the route in their minds as compared
to having the route/app's layed out on the screen. I believe it will be very
easy for a good 6 pack pilot to adapt to screen but not the other way
around...but that's just my opinion.
Patrick
do not archive
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jacks (Was Serious Front Axle...) |
How we use to do it was with a 55 gal. drum that was cut about 2 ft from the
bottom and filled with concrete. A square steel tube was embedded in the
concrete with the top cut into a clevis and a 3/8" hole drilled through with
a pin of the same size. Whole thing was on a wheeled dolly. The clevis was
set about three feet or so off the floor. To jack the front of a plane,
wheel the contraption under the tail, push the tail down so the tie-down
ring would be in the in the clevis, insert the pin. As long as the
contraption weighed enough, the nose wheel would be held off the floor and
you could still move it around the shop...
JKH
On 8/23/06, Roger Standley <taildragon@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bob,
>
> At the hangar, I use a scissors jack. It compresses to less than 4 inches
> and will slip under the nose gear. I made a couple split pipe "jack heads"
> with a pin on the bottom for the main gear. Drilled a hole in the plate on
> top of the scissors jack for the jack head pin. This is simple and works
> great when pants and main fairings are removed. The scissors jack weights a
> lot so looking for a lighter weight solution to carry in the plane. What
> have others done?
>
> Roger
> 40291
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* bcondrey <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:43 AM
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Re: Serious Front Axle Maintenance Issue on the
> RV-10
>
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "bcondrey" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>
> I just talked w/Tom at Van's and his suggestion is to check spacing with a
> feeler gauge and adjust the axle accordingly. He also said that behavior
> would be possibly be very different with the wheel off the ground than with
> full weight on it.
>
> I guess I'll be measuring and adjusting the front axle length tonight...
>
> On related note - what's the best way to jack up the plane for nose wheel
> work? I've been using my engine hoist but assume there's another option for
> "in the field" work.
>
> Bob
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OT: IFR Training With Six-Pack or G1000? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <sean@stephensville.com>
Thanks for the comments everyone. They've been helpful. I just need
to make a decision.
-Sean
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> I'd still train with the traditional setup. It actually is much easier
> to fly, knobs and settings are far easier, but you have to learn to
> mentally picture where you are, instead of seeing it on a moving map.
> A very valuable skill. When you don't have the EFIS, do you still have
> an OBS and a VOR/ILS you can tune, when the circuit breaker for that
> EFIS breaks? Can you fly it and the backup steam gauges effectively,
> when 75% of your training is with the EFIS. IMHO, you would be far
> better off saving the 8 grand, learning the traditional stuff, then,
> as Tim suggested, getting some dual in your RV10 with what avionics
> you install, to add those skills.
> For example, I recently heard of a pilot trained on 430/530 equipment
> who received a present position direct to a fix, then got off course,
> couldn't understand why he shouldn't just push direct-direct again to
> change his course line. If he had a better understanding of the
> limitations of the ATC system and ground based nav, he would have
> understood the problem.
>
> Sean Stephens wrote:
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <sean@stephensville.com>
>>
>> It's not just about GPS and GPS approaches. That was the least of my
>> worries. You still fly all the normal approaches the same way with
>> an EFIS like the G1000 that you do with a six-pack. You're just
>> using different "tools" to accomplish the same flightpath. You still
>> have to know how to tune the OBS and fly the course for example. If
>> it's on the G1000 or via the NAV and indicator, that's just a matter
>> of knowing the "tool" to get the job done.
>>
>> And that is the jist of my question. You still have to learn all the
>> procedures regardless of the tool. If COST was not a factor (and
>> it's a very small factor for me), which "tool" would you rather train
>> on?
>>
>> -Sean
>>
>> Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>>>
>>> Sure, if you want to be incompetent at the partial panel when the
>>> glass panel goes black, which is 99.94% guaranteed to happen on a
>>> BFR, IPC, if not in real life. Learn with the traditional
>>> instruments, it gives you a far more thorough background. Besides,
>>> ATC isn't going to let you fly anything but airways as soon as you
>>> get east of the Miss. or west of the Sierras. GPS will be a very
>>> slow transition, given that the Garmin GPS 100 came on the market 15
>>> years ago, and there are still less than 5 GPSs on the market that
>>> you can legally fly without traditional nav backup in the plane. How
>>> are you going to understand overlay approaches if you don't know how
>>> to fly the underlying approach?
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Dawson-Townsend wrote:
>>>> Ditch the six-pack. Go glass.
>>>>
>>>> When I learned to drive, I did it in a car - I didn't bother to
>>>> learn on a horse . . .
>>>>
>>>> TDT
>>>> 40025
>>>> 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 |
|
Jack, sounds like if you changed girlfriends, you could more than pay the
extra insurance cost. ;-)
Time: 06:06:27 PM PST US
From: "JACK LOCKAMY" <jacklockamy@verizon.net>
Subject: RV10-List: Can and RV-10 be insured for two-seats only?
I would love to build an RV-10 but the recent post of insurance costing
approx. $3800 a year for full coverage gave me reason to sit back and
pause..... I'm currently paying approx. $1400 p/year for the RV-7A
with full coverage.
Like most, I am sure I would only fly with more than one-passenger
rarely (if at all...). I like the RV-10 for it's cross-country
capability and larger cabin. Therefore, for my type of flying (95%
cross-country solo and/or maybe one passenger...), can an RV-10 be
insured for two seats only? If so, what kind of rates have been quoted
with a $100-125K hull value and the normal $1 million dollar liability
policy?
My girlfriend would like to be able to take three suitcases full of
shoes so we really don't have space for passengers! :-)
Jack Lockamy
Camarillo, CA
RV-7A N174JL 220 hrs.
www.jacklockamy.com
jacklockamy@verizon.net
do not archive
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: OT: IFR Training With Six-Pack or G1000? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sean, I'm pretty much with Kelly and Patrick on the one concept they
both brought up. I was thinking about it myself before I read their
emails. The EFIS is great, and you'll absolutely like flying it
more than anything else. The thing is, it is just plain a good
skill to learn to learn the regular instruments well, and especially
get used to visualizing where you are WITHOUT a moving map. Before
I had gone into my Intrument Training, my airline buddy pushed my
buttons a bit when he asked how I would get down and land without
an instrument rating. I thought I could easily do it with a
handheld GPS to get at least near an airport and land. He laughed
and said I won't have TIME for a handheld GPS when flying instruments
until I get a bunch of skills built. He was very right...despite
having a moving map GPS in the cockpit, it was all I could do to
just keep the play flying level on course for a while, and then
adding the approaches solidified it for me. I didn't end up
using the GPS at all until I was completely done, and it actually
felt good to be able to tune the OBS and know where you were in
relation to the approach chart. I really think there's some value
there. The rudimentary skills are very nice to have. I'm not
at all knocking the EFIS's, of course, because hey, I'm sold on
those....G1000, Avidyne, Chelton, whatever. And after you have
the rating, it will be easier to effectively use the additional
tools you get with those systems. As far as having an EFIS
for the rating help with your future EFIS use, yeah, maybe it
would help a little, but unless you're actually going to buy
the G900/1000, you'll find too many differences between them
to really have it matter that much. There will be a day when
nobody even has the opportunity to learn on steam gauges
anymore, but for now, consider that it may have some actual
value to it. You KNOW you'll be flying an EFIS some day, so you
may as well take the opportunity to learn the other side now.
Mind-expanding experiences can be very good things.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> I'd still train with the traditional setup. It actually is much easier
> to fly, knobs and settings are far easier, but you have to learn to
> mentally picture where you are, instead of seeing it on a moving map. A
> very valuable skill. When you don't have the EFIS, do you still have an
> OBS and a VOR/ILS you can tune, when the circuit breaker for that EFIS
> breaks? Can you fly it and the backup steam gauges effectively, when 75%
> of your training is with the EFIS. IMHO, you would be far better off
> saving the 8 grand, learning the traditional stuff, then, as Tim
> suggested, getting some dual in your RV10 with what avionics you
> install, to add those skills.
> For example, I recently heard of a pilot trained on 430/530 equipment
> who received a present position direct to a fix, then got off course,
> couldn't understand why he shouldn't just push direct-direct again to
> change his course line. If he had a better understanding of the
> limitations of the ATC system and ground based nav, he would have
> understood the problem.
>
> Sean Stephens wrote:
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <sean@stephensville.com>
>>
>> It's not just about GPS and GPS approaches. That was the least of my
>> worries. You still fly all the normal approaches the same way with an
>> EFIS like the G1000 that you do with a six-pack. You're just using
>> different "tools" to accomplish the same flightpath. You still have
>> to know how to tune the OBS and fly the course for example. If it's
>> on the G1000 or via the NAV and indicator, that's just a matter of
>> knowing the "tool" to get the job done.
>>
>> And that is the jist of my question. You still have to learn all the
>> procedures regardless of the tool. If COST was not a factor (and it's
>> a very small factor for me), which "tool" would you rather train on?
>>
>> -Sean
>>
>> Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>>>
>>> Sure, if you want to be incompetent at the partial panel when the
>>> glass panel goes black, which is 99.94% guaranteed to happen on a
>>> BFR, IPC, if not in real life. Learn with the traditional
>>> instruments, it gives you a far more thorough background. Besides,
>>> ATC isn't going to let you fly anything but airways as soon as you
>>> get east of the Miss. or west of the Sierras. GPS will be a very slow
>>> transition, given that the Garmin GPS 100 came on the market 15 years
>>> ago, and there are still less than 5 GPSs on the market that you can
>>> legally fly without traditional nav backup in the plane. How are you
>>> going to understand overlay approaches if you don't know how to fly
>>> the underlying approach?
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Dawson-Townsend wrote:
>>>> Ditch the six-pack. Go glass.
>>>>
>>>> When I learned to drive, I did it in a car - I didn't bother to
>>>> learn on a horse . . .
>>>>
>>>> TDT
>>>> 40025
>>>> do not archive
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Build times - time to get restarted? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
It's because Matronics can be read by email or from a web
forum, either way. This is just a link into the
web forum.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Wayne Edgerton wrote:
> I'm obviously not understanding something. A person will make a posting
> and at the bottom of the posting it will say
>
> Read this topic online here:
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=56714#56714
>
>
> which will be the same thing that I just read but in a little different
> format. What is the purpose of this, to post to two different sites?
>
> Wayne Edgerton # 40336
>
> do not archive
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
To any So Cal Builders:
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: So Cal Builders |
Sorry about that, fat fingers hit the wrong button before I was done. See
below:
On 8/24/06, James K Hovis <james.k.hovis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To any So Cal Builders:
>
>
Is there anyone on this list building in the Garden Grove or Cypress CA
areas? I'm on temporary assignment here until next Friday and would love to
look at a project underway. Please let me know.
James Hovis.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GM LS2 Engine - opinions |
It's about 50lbs more than the IO-540 once you load the coolant. Of
course, that includes air conditioning. It's smaller than 540 also. We
would need to load two batteries pretty far back to account for the
difference in CG.
----- Original Message -----
From: EFDsteve@aol.com
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: GM LS2 Engine - opinions
I agree in concept that the LS2 engine might make a good airplane
engine, but in talking to someone who did some extensive research on
this topic, when fitted with the PSRU, the weight and balance become
unworkable on the RV-10. I haven't seen the numbers, though.
If you find a way to make this conversion work, please let us know!
Steve Weinstock
40230
In a message dated 8/22/2006 9:16:26 P.M. Central Standard Time,
jdalton77@comcast.net writes:
I'm a long way from engine selection, but I've been hearing a lot of
good commentary on the GM LS2 engine (used in the 2005 Corvette). The
ones I have seen on aircraft have been derated to a maximum of 4500 RPM
(redline is over 6500 RPM) limiting the HP to 300HP.
The engine new is less than $6k. Of course, all the mods will add
up to closer to $20k altogether.
Opinions?
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: So Cal Builders |
I'm in LA about 10 minutes north of LAX. A bit of a trek from garden
grove, but I'd be happy to get together and talk RVs.
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:36 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: So Cal Builders
Sorry about that, fat fingers hit the wrong button before I was done.
See below:
On 8/24/06, James K Hovis <james.k.hovis@gmail.com> wrote:
To any So Cal Builders:
Is there anyone on this list building in the Garden Grove or Cypress
CA areas? I'm on temporary assignment here until next Friday and would
love to look at a project underway. Please let me know.
James Hovis.
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: | Servicing air in the tires |
Has anyone come up with a way to put air into the tires without removing
the fairings?
Wayne Edgerton #40336
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 |
|
Has anyone cut access panels into the glareshield to provide access to
the rear for easy access to connect/disconnect instruments.
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: | Servicing air in the tires |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509@msn.com>
Wayne cut a round hole in the fairing where the valve is. Mark the tire so
you know when the hole is lined up with the valve. Wal Mart has some round
disk you can use to cover the hole or Aircraft Spruce has a Camloc Access
Door p/n KM713-16-064 for $25. Air Craft Extras sells a valve extension I
may try www.aircraftextras.com. You might also want to try the Michelin
AIRSTOP tubes. I hear they lose very little air.
Mark
>From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e@grandecom.net>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV10-List: Servicing air in the tires
>Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:36:29 -0500
>
>Has anyone come up with a way to put air into the tires without removing
>the fairings?
>
>Wayne Edgerton #40336
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: | Servicing air in the tires |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Mike Lauritsen - Work" <mike@cleavelandtool.com>
We have been selling them for 15 years now...
http://cleavelandtoolstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=VSE5
$11 plus shipping for the extension and three covers.
Mike Lauritsen
Cleaveland Aircraft Tool
2225 First St.
Boone, Iowa 50036
515-432-6794
mike@cleavelandtool.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:42 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Servicing air in the tires
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509@msn.com>
Wayne cut a round hole in the fairing where the valve is. Mark the tire so
you know when the hole is lined up with the valve. Wal Mart has some round
disk you can use to cover the hole or Aircraft Spruce has a Camloc Access
Door p/n KM713-16-064 for $25. Air Craft Extras sells a valve extension I
may try www.aircraftextras.com. You might also want to try the Michelin
AIRSTOP tubes. I hear they lose very little air.
Mark
>From: "Wayne Edgerton" <wayne.e@grandecom.net>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV10-List: Servicing air in the tires
>Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:36:29 -0500
>
>Has anyone come up with a way to put air into the tires without removing
>the fairings?
>
>Wayne Edgerton #40336
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: Servicing air in the tires |
Gave this some thought and decided I could add an access later. Basic
objection is that if you pump up a flat tire and go fly, how do you know
it will have air when you land? Probably better to replace the
tire/tube.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Lauritsen - Work<mailto:mike@cleavelandtool.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Servicing air in the tires
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Mike Lauritsen - Work"
<mike@cleavelandtool.com<mailto:mike@cleavelandtool.com>>
We have been selling them for 15 years now...
http://cleavelandtoolstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=VSE5<http://cleavela
ndtoolstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=VSE5>
$11 plus shipping for the extension and three covers.
Mike Lauritsen
Cleaveland Aircraft Tool
2225 First St.
Boone, Iowa 50036
515-432-6794
mike@cleavelandtool.com<mailto:mike@cleavelandtool.com>
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matron
ics.com>
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:42 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Servicing air in the tires
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Mark Ritter"
<mritter509@msn.com<mailto:mritter509@msn.com>>
Wayne cut a round hole in the fairing where the valve is. Mark the
tire so
you know when the hole is lined up with the valve. Wal Mart has some
round
disk you can use to cover the hole or Aircraft Spruce has a Camloc
Access
Door p/n KM713-16-064 for $25. Air Craft Extras sells a valve
extension I
may try www.aircraftextras.com<http://www.aircraftextras.com/>. You
might also want to try the Michelin
AIRSTOP tubes. I hear they lose very little air.
Mark
>From: "Wayne Edgerton"
<wayne.e@grandecom.net<mailto:wayne.e@grandecom.net>>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>>
>Subject: RV10-List: Servicing air in the tires
>Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:36:29 -0500
>
>Has anyone come up with a way to put air into the tires without
removing
>the fairings?
>
>Wayne Edgerton #40336
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List<http://www.matronics.com/Nav
igator?RV10-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
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: | Re: panel access |
David,
I considered doing this but decided to cut the panel into three sections
instead. This worked well for my simple VFR panel layout. Center section
should not have to be removed. Side sections give plenty of access.
Roger
#40291
----- Original Message -----
From: David McNeill<mailto:dlm46007@cox.net>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:31 PM
Subject: RV10-List: panel access
Has anyone cut access panels into the glareshield to provide access to
the rear for easy access to connect/disconnect instruments.
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List<http://www.matronics.com/Nav
igator?RV10-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
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: | Re: panel access |
I spoke with Van's today and they see no problem creating access panels.
I plan to create two 3" by 8" slots about 3.5" aft of the panel ; they
will each start about 2" either side of the center post. Van's suggested
avoiding overkill on the doublers. match the thickness of the forward
deck with the doubler. They suggested #6 screws but I will use #8s and
nutplates. I will be necessary to use cap screws with internal hex head
so that an Allen wrench can install and remove. I will install my
defroster fan just forward of the left slot with some .625" standoffs ;
I believe this will provide adequate air circulation to keep
condensation at a minimum in rainy humid conditions.
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Standley
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: panel access
David,
I considered doing this but decided to cut the panel into three
sections instead. This worked well for my simple VFR panel layout.
Center section should not have to be removed. Side sections give plenty
of access.
Roger
#40291
----- Original Message -----
From: David McNeill
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:31 PM
Subject: RV10-List: panel access
Has anyone cut access panels into the glareshield to provide access
to the rear for easy access to connect/disconnect instruments.
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Can and RV-10 be insured for two-seats only? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Chris" <toaster73@earthlink.net>
Or just leave the back seats out and make a full cargo area/ camper.
-Chris
#40072
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@avidyne.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:16 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Can and RV-10 be insured for two-seats only?
Sounds like a Catch-22. The insurance company is probably not going to give
you 2-seater insurance, unless you register the airplane with the FAA as
having 2 seats. And then if you ever did try using seats 3 and 4, you'd be
violating the FARs, probably, and the insurance company would have a good
reason to deny any claims.
TDT
40025
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Rob Kermanj
Sent: Wed 8/23/2006 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Can and RV-10 be insured for two-seats only?
I pay $2400 for the kind of coverage you are looking for and it is
for four soles. Of course at the end, your experience will determine
your rate. Talk to Falcon Insurance.
Do not archive.
On Aug 23, 2006, at 9:05 PM, JACK LOCKAMY wrote:
> I would love to build an RV-10 but the recent post of insurance
> costing approx. $3800 a year for full coverage gave me reason to
> sit back and pause..... I'm currently paying approx. $1400 p/year
> for the RV-7A with full coverage.
>
> Like most, I am sure I would only fly with more than one-passenger
> rarely (if at all...). I like the RV-10 for it's cross-country
> capability and larger cabin. Therefore, for my type of flying (95%
> cross-country solo and/or maybe one passenger...), can an RV-10 be
> insured for two seats only? If so, what kind of rates have been
> quoted with a $100-125K hull value and the normal $1 million dollar
> liability policy?
>
> My girlfriend would like to be able to take three suitcases full of
> shoes so we really don't have space for passengers! :-)
>
> Jack Lockamy
> Camarillo, CA
> RV-7A N174JL 220 hrs.
> www.jacklockamy.com
> jacklockamy@verizon.net
>
> do not archive
> > > > =========
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: So Cal Builders |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Niko Napoli" <nikonapoli@comcast.net>
Actually I am going to be at El Segundo on business for a week starting today.
Would love to get together with local builders. You can contact me at the number
below.
Niko
772 708-9080
-----Original Message-----
From: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston@popsound.com>
Sent: 8/24/06 1:10:56 PM
To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: So Cal Builders
I'm in LA about 10 minutes north of LAX. A bit of a trek from garden
grove, but I'd be happy to get together and talk RVs.
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:36 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Re: So Cal Builders
Sorry about that, fat fingers hit the wrong button before I was done.
See below:
On 8/24/06, James K Hovis <james.k.hovis@gmail.com> wrote:
To any So Cal Builders:
Is there anyone on this list building in the Garden Grove or Cypress
CA areas? I'm on temporary assignment here until next Friday and would
love to look at a project underway. Please let me know.
James Hovis.
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: Can and RV-10 be insured for two-seats only? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "ScottA" <s-aldrich@comcast.net>
>From my experience just this week it makes no difference how you register the
aircraft with the FAA, they will go by how many seats it "could" have. I have
a Murphy Moose and they published on their website once that it could be a 4/6
seater. The insurance saw this and will only quote on it being a 6 seat aircraft
now - complete PITA.
FWIW
Scott
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=57184#57184
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! --
|