Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:29 AM - Re: Apologies to Deems (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
2. 07:17 AM - Re: RV-10 landing characteristics (Doerr, Ray R [NTK])
3. 07:23 AM - Re: Ray Allen Trim Servo (Doerr, Ray R [NTK])
4. 07:48 AM - Prop (Noel & Yoshie Simmons)
5. 08:11 AM - Re: Ray Allen Trim Servo (Vern W. Smith)
6. 08:55 AM - Re: RV-10 landing characteristics (Tim Olson)
7. 09:27 AM - Re: Ray Allen Trim Servo (Deems Davis)
8. 11:44 AM - Re: Ray Allen Trim Servo (Jesse Saint)
9. 03:06 PM - GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check (Marcus Cooper)
10. 03:21 PM - Elevator control horn drill spacing (John Gonzalez)
11. 04:45 PM - Re: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check (John Gonzalez)
12. 05:36 PM - Re: Ray Allen Trim Servo (Marcus Cooper)
13. 05:43 PM - Re: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check (Marcus Cooper)
14. 05:45 PM - Landing lights (Marcus Cooper)
15. 05:58 PM - Re: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check (Jesse Saint)
16. 05:58 PM - Re: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check (David McNeill)
17. 06:03 PM - Re: Landing lights (Russell Daves)
18. 06:05 PM - Re: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check (Tim Olson)
19. 06:05 PM - Re: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check (David McNeill)
20. 06:05 PM - Re: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check (Tom Deutsch)
21. 06:21 PM - Re: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check (Tim Olson)
22. 07:43 PM - Re: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check (David McNeill)
23. 09:07 PM - RV 10s in Scottsdale, AZ (ddddsp1@juno.com)
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: | Apologies to Deems |
To the best of my knowledge the James cowl is also being used by
Eggenfellner Subaru, I have one on order( The engine and cowl package)
and should be receiving it in DEC.
Dan Lloyd
RV10E (N289DT)
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:43 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Apologies to Deems
It was not Michael's site but Deems in his Will James folder (under
photos) with the second generation mold product for the RV-10. First
generation being John Goodlad. Now pipe in here Ed, aren't you #1
behind the auto engine, with Michael and Deems waiting in the Que too?
John
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: | RV-10 landing characteristics |
I fly my approaches at 70 Kts when calm and 75 when loaded
or in heavy wind. What I have found is that it wants to float with only
10 degrees of flaps, but with full flaps there isn't much flair at all.
Castering nose wheel works great provided you have the breakout force
set correctly. If it is too tight, you will need brakes to taxi. What
I find is to taxi a little faster so the rudder is effective, then you
don't need to touch the brakes unless you have a 15 kts crosswind.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
N519RV
138 hours
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 landing characteristics
Agree with Rob totally. I would add that I have found the approach
angle with full flaps and 75 kts a bit steep with forward CG ("without
Passenger"). In this instance, I use "1/2 Flaps" and touch down with up
elevator and a flatter attitude. I believe that this behavior is normal
in 4 seater planes.
I have also found that the castering nose wheel to be much easier to
control that a steerable one. You don't have to stand on it to make
tight turns and you almost do not have to use the breaks to stear. I
have tried it on paved taxiways....using the rudder to steer.... and it
works!
Do not archive
Rob Kermanj
On Sep 25, 2006, at 7:00 PM, Rob Wright wrote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Rob Wright" <armywrights@adelphia.net>
In short, slow down!
Well, initially you want to go back to basics. Many critical V speeds
are
calculated at 1.2, 1.3 or so X Vso, so you really don't need to go 20-30
knots faster to approach to land. No wonder you're ballooning up. It
must
take a lot of power to land that fast at full flaps as well. Then when
you
round out the wing+flaps combo has so much camber that you've got one
awesome angle of attack going. The extra weight of a passenger is
giving
you the slight advantage of helping the aircraft settle onto the runway,
but
you're still developing too much lift.
Most folks you talk to use a rule of thumb of stall + 5 knots in calm
winds,
stall + 10 knots in crosswinds or gusty winds. Do a little research in
the
light to medium twins and you find yourself looking at VRef speeds. The
one
I fly is Ref + 20 at partial flaps, then Ref +10 at full flaps, then Ref
across the threshold; Ref being the standard Stall + X as necessary for
the
conditions.
I can't help you on the ground handling thing. No castering nosewheel
experience yet.
Rob Wright
#392
Starting QB Fuse...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ivo welch
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 4:44 PM
Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 landing characteristics
--> RV10-List message posted by: ivo welch <ivowel@gmail.com>
Although I am still trying to sell my Vans RV-10 (lack of time---I have
a toddler), I have decided that I will keep it if I don't get any nice
offers. (in case anyone is interested,
http://welch.econ.brown.edu/n325hp/; also, if you know someone else
who wants a flawless RV-10, please forward this).
Now, I am still flying once a month with it to familiarize myself with
it. Flight characteristics are wonderfully simple---as easy as a piper
cherokee, and this at 50% faster and with fuel consumption that is
fairly similar at comparable speeds. Vans make amazing airplanes.
Alas, I find that the ground handling, like any other nose-steerable
plain with wheels close together and castoring front-wheel (eg SR-22),
is less pleasant. I am a low-time 300 hour pilot (half in an RV-9), and
not flying often does not help.
So, I would love to ask some other RV-10 pilots what practices they
like best about landing. At 75 knots, the airplane seems in slow-flight
mode---behind the power curve. still very easily controllable, but not
as crisp as it is at 110 knots. When I land with *full* flaps, I also
think it is not as easily controllable (tends to be a little fidgety; it
wants
to jump up again; not a big deal) as when I land with 2/3 flaps. I
presume
this means that I should land at slower speeds. What have others found
to be best (speed + flap setting; as function of weight, sidewind, etc)?
Aside, I find that an RV-10 lands nicer with a passenger than without
one.
In fact, it is very easy to grease the landing *with* passenger and then
control it on the ground, but seems more difficult alone. Am I
imagining
these characteristics, or do other RV-10 pilots have the same
experience?
I was thinking about landing another 10 knots slower for easier ground
handling, but even though this is still about 20 knots above stall
speed, the fact that it is in slow flight makes me hesitate. Any other
pilot experiences would be appreciated.
FWIW, I would sacrifice 5 knots in flying speed for wheels further
apart, bigger, and perhaps front wheel steerable. If nothing else, it
would make soft-field landings safer. I wish Vans and Cirrus and
everyone else offered some options to improve ground handling---
wheels farther apart, a nose wheel that wants to stay straight even
in cross-wind landings, perhaps bigger tires or shock absorber. Has
anyone come up with something better than Vans?
Regards,
/iaw
- The RV10-List Email Forum -
Thank you for your generous support!
-->
--> http://forums.matronics.com
http://wiki.matronics.com
===========
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Ray Allen Trim Servo |
I drilled mine for a small hole and inserted a snap bushing
so the wires come out of the side. Just drill the hole in the center of
the side metal so as not to weaken it.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marc
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:44 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Ray Allen Trim Servo
Was wondering if anyone else had this problem or not?
Before I mount the elevator trim servo bracket with the Ray Allen trim
servo, I wanted to
think about the wiring. The wires make a real sharp bend due to the
closeness of the mounting bracket.
See attached picture. Did anyone cut out a half circle in the bracket
or just bend the wires and
cover with protective material?
Also, what wire did you guys use to hook up the servo?
I was thinking of ordering the WC2 5 wire Teflon Installation Cable from
Ray Allen
at $1.10 per foot.
Thanks for the input
Marc Hudson
#560
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 |
|
Gentlemen,
I reinstated my e-mail subscription to the RV-10 list so I can sell a prop.
Due to a hole in our schedule we have had to work on a Piper UUGG. Anyway I
have a hartsle prop that has been setting on a Cherokee 235 hanger queen.
This prop has had 10 hours or so on it over the past 10-15 years and is due
for the 5 year AD overhaul mind you 0 time since overhaul, no one has taken
a file to it, it is perfect. The owner wants to put a shiny three blade on
it and wants me to sell this prop; of coarse the 5 year overhaul will be
done. Make me an offer, Van's has new props for 6000.00 so buy this one and
a transponder for the same price.
Noel Simmons RV-10 325HP among 21 others
I have a NICE rv-9A for sale too.
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: | Ray Allen Trim Servo |
Hi all,
Since we are talking about Allen trim servos, what kind of wire
connectors are people using to hook it to the wiring? Knife splice, butt
splice, AMP PIDG or what? I ask primarily because the aileron trim servo
is mounted on the left wing's inboard inspection cover. And it seems
like it would be nice to be able to "unplug it" in the future without
cutting the wires.
Vern Smith (#40324 wings)
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doerr, Ray R
[NTK]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:23 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Ray Allen Trim Servo
I drilled mine for a small hole and inserted a snap bushing
so the wires come out of the side. Just drill the hole in the center of
the side metal so as not to weaken it.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marc
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:44 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Ray Allen Trim Servo
Was wondering if anyone else had this problem or not?
Before I mount the elevator trim servo bracket with the Ray Allen trim
servo, I wanted to
think about the wiring. The wires make a real sharp bend due to the
closeness of the mounting bracket.
See attached picture. Did anyone cut out a half circle in the bracket
or just bend the wires and
cover with protective material?
Also, what wire did you guys use to hook up the servo?
I was thinking of ordering the WC2 5 wire Teflon Installation Cable from
Ray Allen
at $1.10 per foot.
Thanks for the input
Marc Hudson
#560
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 landing characteristics |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Ditto on that from Ray.
Ray, you're doing pretty good. I'm at 141 hours, so you've
done a great job catching up!
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Doerr, Ray R [NTK] wrote:
> I fly my approaches at 70 Kts when calm and 75 when loaded
> or in heavy wind. What I have found is that it wants to float with only
> 10 degrees of flaps, but with full flaps there isnt much flair at all.
> Castering nose wheel works great provided you have the breakout force
> set correctly. If it is too tight, you will need brakes to taxi. What
> I find is to taxi a little faster so the rudder is effective, then you
> dont need to touch the brakes unless you have a 15 kts crosswind.
>
>
>
> Thank You
> *Ray Doerr*
>
> *N519RV*
> 138 hours
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rob Kermanj
> *Sent:* Monday, September 25, 2006 7:18 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: RV-10 landing characteristics
>
>
>
> Agree with Rob totally. I would add that I have found the approach
> angle with full flaps and 75 kts a bit steep with forward CG ("without
> Passenger"). In this instance, I use "1/2 Flaps" and touch down with up
> elevator and a flatter attitude. I believe that this behavior is normal
> in 4 seater planes.
>
>
>
> I have also found that the castering nose wheel to be much easier to
> control that a steerable one. You don't have to stand on it to make
> tight turns and you almost do not have to use the breaks to stear. I
> have tried it on paved taxiways....using the rudder to steer.... and it
> works!
>
>
>
> Do not archive
>
> Rob Kermanj
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 25, 2006, at 7:00 PM, Rob Wright wrote:
>
>
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rob Wright" <armywrights@adelphia.net
> <mailto:armywrights@adelphia.net>>
>
>
>
> In short, slow down!
>
>
>
> Well, initially you want to go back to basics. Many critical V speeds are
>
> calculated at 1.2, 1.3 or so X Vso, so you really don't need to go 20-30
>
> knots faster to approach to land. No wonder you're ballooning up. It must
>
> take a lot of power to land that fast at full flaps as well. Then when you
>
> round out the wing+flaps combo has so much camber that you've got one
>
> awesome angle of attack going. The extra weight of a passenger is giving
>
> you the slight advantage of helping the aircraft settle onto the runway, but
>
> you're still developing too much lift.
>
>
>
> Most folks you talk to use a rule of thumb of stall + 5 knots in calm winds,
>
> stall + 10 knots in crosswinds or gusty winds. Do a little research in the
>
> light to medium twins and you find yourself looking at VRef speeds. The one
>
> I fly is Ref + 20 at partial flaps, then Ref +10 at full flaps, then Ref
>
> across the threshold; Ref being the standard Stall + X as necessary for the
>
> conditions.
>
>
>
> I can't help you on the ground handling thing. No castering nosewheel
>
> experience yet.
>
>
>
> Rob Wright
>
> #392
>
> Starting QB Fuse...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>
>
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ivo welch
>
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 4:44 PM
>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>
> Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 landing characteristics
>
>
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: ivo welch <ivowel@gmail.com
> <mailto:ivowel@gmail.com>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Although I am still trying to sell my Vans RV-10 (lack of time---I have
>
> a toddler), I have decided that I will keep it if I don't get any nice
>
> offers. (in case anyone is interested,
>
> http://welch.econ.brown.edu/n325hp/; also, if you know someone else
>
> who wants a flawless RV-10, please forward this).
>
>
>
>
>
> Now, I am still flying once a month with it to familiarize myself with
>
> it. Flight characteristics are wonderfully simple---as easy as a piper
>
> cherokee, and this at 50% faster and with fuel consumption that is
>
> fairly similar at comparable speeds. Vans make amazing airplanes.
>
> Alas, I find that the ground handling, like any other nose-steerable
>
> plain with wheels close together and castoring front-wheel (eg SR-22),
>
> is less pleasant. I am a low-time 300 hour pilot (half in an RV-9), and
>
> not flying often does not help.
>
>
>
> So, I would love to ask some other RV-10 pilots what practices they
>
> like best about landing. At 75 knots, the airplane seems in slow-flight
>
> mode---behind the power curve. still very easily controllable, but not
>
> as crisp as it is at 110 knots. When I land with *full* flaps, I also
>
> think it is not as easily controllable (tends to be a little fidgety; it
>
> wants
>
> to jump up again; not a big deal) as when I land with 2/3 flaps. I presume
>
> this means that I should land at slower speeds. What have others found
>
> to be best (speed + flap setting; as function of weight, sidewind, etc)?
>
> Aside, I find that an RV-10 lands nicer with a passenger than without one.
>
> In fact, it is very easy to grease the landing *with* passenger and then
>
> control it on the ground, but seems more difficult alone. Am I imagining
>
> these characteristics, or do other RV-10 pilots have the same experience?
>
>
>
> I was thinking about landing another 10 knots slower for easier ground
>
> handling, but even though this is still about 20 knots above stall
>
> speed, the fact that it is in slow flight makes me hesitate. Any other
>
> pilot experiences would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> FWIW, I would sacrifice 5 knots in flying speed for wheels further
>
> apart, bigger, and perhaps front wheel steerable. If nothing else, it
>
> would make soft-field landings safer. I wish Vans and Cirrus and
>
> everyone else offered some options to improve ground handling---
>
> wheels farther apart, a nose wheel that wants to stay straight even
>
> in cross-wind landings, perhaps bigger tires or shock absorber. Has
>
> anyone come up with something better than Vans?
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> /iaw
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - The RV10-List Email Forum -
>
> < /DIV>
> < /DIV>
> < /DIV>
> < /DIV>
>
> Thank you for your generous support!
>
> -->
>
> the Web -->
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: Ray Allen Trim Servo |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
I've seen two approaches used. 1. is on Aeroelectic.com where Bob
illustrates how to use a 9 pin d-sub with the flanges ground off and
then bound with shrinkwrap. 2. Ted French has used what I believe are
RJ45 connectors (I assume this requires a special crimp tool, but looked
like a nice solution.
Deems Davis # 406
Panel/Finishing
http://deemsrv10.com/
Vern W. Smith wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Since we are talking about Allen trim servos, what kind of wire
> connectors are people using to hook it to the wiring? Knife splice,
> butt splice, AMP PIDG or what? I ask primarily because the aileron
> trim servo is mounted on the left wings inboard inspection cover. And
> it seems like it would be nice to be able to unplug it in the future
> without cutting the wires.
>
> Vern Smith (#40324 wings)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Doerr,
> Ray R [NTK]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:23 AM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Ray Allen Trim Servo
>
> I drilled mine for a small hole and inserted a snap bushing so the
> wires come out of the side. Just drill the hole in the center of the
> side metal so as not to weaken it.
>
> Thank You
> *Ray Doerr*
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Marc
> *Sent:* Monday, September 25, 2006 8:44 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Ray Allen Trim Servo
>
> Was wondering if anyone else had this problem or not?
>
> Before I mount the elevator trim servo bracket with the Ray Allen trim
> servo, I wanted to
>
> think about the wiring. The wires make a real sharp bend due to the
> closeness of the mounting bracket.
>
> See attached picture. Did anyone cut out a half circle in the bracket
> or just bend the wires and
>
> cover with protective material?
>
> Also, what wire did you guys use to hook up the servo?
>
> I was thinking of ordering the WC2 5 wire Teflon Installation Cable
> from Ray Allen
>
> at $1.10 per foot.
>
> Thanks for the input
>
> Marc Hudson
>
> #560
>
>* *
>
>* *
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>* *
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
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: | Ray Allen Trim Servo |
I used 9-pin d-subs with zip-ties through the holes in the two
connectors to
hold them together and heat shrink from the back of the connector onto
the
wires.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
HYPERLINK "mailto:jesse@itecusa.org"jesse@itecusa.org
HYPERLINK "http://www.itecusa.org"www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11:11 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Ray Allen Trim Servo
Hi all,
Since we are talking about Allen trim servos, what kind of wire
connectors
are people using to hook it to the wiring? Knife splice, butt splice,
AMP
PIDG or what? I ask primarily because the aileron trim servo is mounted
on
the left wing=92s inboard inspection cover. And it seems like it would
be nice
to be able to =93unplug it=94 in the future without cutting the wires.
Vern Smith (#40324 wings)
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doerr, Ray R
[NTK]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:23 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Ray Allen Trim Servo
I drilled mine for a small hole and inserted a snap bushing
so
the wires come out of the side. Just drill the hole in the center of
the
side metal so as not to weaken it.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marc
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:44 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Ray Allen Trim Servo
Was wondering if anyone else had this problem or not?
Before I mount the elevator trim servo bracket with the Ray Allen trim
servo, I wanted to
think about the wiring. The wires make a real sharp bend due to the
closeness of the mounting bracket.
See attached picture. Did anyone cut out a half circle in the bracket
or
just bend the wires and
cover with protective material?
Also, what wire did you guys use to hook up the servo?
I was thinking of ordering the WC2 5 wire Teflon Installation Cable from
Ray
Allen
at $1.10 per foot.
Thanks for the input
Marc Hudson
#560
--
9/25/2006
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: | GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
I'm ready to start traveling around this great country in our RV-10 so I
started looking into the XPDR Mode C certification and Pitot Static checks.
I know the XPRD encoder check is required to operate Mode C. I spoke to the
local avionics guy and he said they remove the altimeter and encoder from
the airplane and hook it to the test equipment. Not possible with the GRT
EFIS so we are looking into how to actually do this.
The questions are:
- is the pitot static check (run it up to 20K and see how it responds)
required for an experimental to fly IFR?
- How have folks performed the pitot static check (if required) and the
XPDR encoder check with a GRT EFIS?
Thanks
Marcus
Do not archive
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: | Elevator control horn drill spacing |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Richard,
Thank you for your reply. I agree with you and I am sure that many others
have had the same problem and have not realized it. It is a shame Van's has
not made this correction in the manual or on the jigging of the parts in
this assembly.
By your expanation of AC43, it seems I am under the required amount of
material by 3/32" if my math is correct.
I sent a previous email but it seems it got lost in cyberspace.
Rather than disassembling the skins and getting new horn parts, I am going
to contact Van's and find out whether welding a plate onto the offending
horn would be a viable option. Of course, arc welding with no flame would
be needed and I have a neighbor who is a world renown metal sculpter that
can do the work perfectly. I need to still study the hardware connection to
determine whether this will work with the required connection method.
My apologies if the first email finally comes through.
JOhn G. 409
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: | GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
When I have had my bi-annual transponder certification on my sailplane, all
they did was to hook a pressure device to the single airline going into the
encoder and then run through all the different frequencies on the
transponder while changing the pressure into the encoder to verify it is
functioning correctly.
Mode C has nothing to do with EXPERIMENTAL catagory, but is required for
Class B airspace, so to with Class A(IFR). I am unfamiliar with the GRT
EFIS, does this have its own encoder built in or is it too connected to a
seperate encoder? If seperate, would it not be the same as my above test.
No one has ever checked the entire static system for leaks while checking
the transponder certificaion.
I'm not clear on how a static leak or error, would be discoverred if both
the encoder and the altimeter are hooked to the same static system? Approach
control radar does not determine ones altitude, that's why we have mode C.
The encoder is set to 29.92 and then we set the manual altimeter to current
barometric pressure, but if the encoder is hooked to the same static line
both will have errors when we give our initial reporting altitude. even when
they correct for the difference in barometric pressure, current vs. 29.92
I need a little help on this.
JOhn G.
>From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
>Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:05:05 -0400
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>
>I'm ready to start traveling around this great country in our RV-10 so I
>started looking into the XPDR Mode C certification and Pitot Static checks.
>I know the XPRD encoder check is required to operate Mode C. I spoke to
>the
>local avionics guy and he said they remove the altimeter and encoder from
>the airplane and hook it to the test equipment. Not possible with the GRT
>EFIS so we are looking into how to actually do this.
>
>The questions are:
> - is the pitot static check (run it up to 20K and see how it responds)
>required for an experimental to fly IFR?
> - How have folks performed the pitot static check (if required) and the
>XPDR encoder check with a GRT EFIS?
>
>Thanks
>Marcus
>
>Do not archive
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Ray Allen Trim Servo |
Marc,
I can't remember any issues with the wire bend, but I got the MAC 5-wire
servo wire from Aircraft Spruce for a little cheaper:
MAC SERVO WIRE 5 WIRES 20 FT
11-11550
$16.20
MAC SERVO WIRE 5 WIRES 25 FT
11-11549
$20.25
MAC SERVO WIRE 5 WIRES 50 FT
11-11548
$40.50
Marcus
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marc
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:44 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Ray Allen Trim Servo
Was wondering if anyone else had this problem or not?
Before I mount the elevator trim servo bracket with the Ray Allen trim
servo, I wanted to
think about the wiring. The wires make a real sharp bend due to the
closeness of the mounting bracket.
See attached picture. Did anyone cut out a half circle in the bracket or
just bend the wires and
cover with protective material?
Also, what wire did you guys use to hook up the servo?
I was thinking of ordering the WC2 5 wire Teflon Installation Cable from Ray
Allen
at $1.10 per foot.
Thanks for the input
Marc Hudson
#560
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: | GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
John,
The GRT encoder is built into the system and the same computer drives both
the encoder and altimeter display so there's not going to be any difference.
In that regard I guess I just have to shell out $75 for the Mode C sign-off
even though it's a waste of time. As for the leak, I suspect they use a
calibrated vacuum to raise the simulated altitude to make sure the altimeter
reads the same. As for necessity, I doubt a leak would be that catastrophic
as the pressure inside and out of the airplane are similar (as indicated by
the alternate air source on most airplanes being in the cabin), although not
exactly the same. Definitely an issue with pressurized airplanes, but I
don't have one.
What it really comes down to is I know I need the transponder (really
encoder) certification to turn on the Mode C. Right now I just tell center
every flight that I'm negative Mode C, but I'd sure like to turn it on.
What I'm wondering, is if a pitot-static check is required for IFR flight?
Marcus
40286
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:44 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
When I have had my bi-annual transponder certification on my sailplane, all
they did was to hook a pressure device to the single airline going into the
encoder and then run through all the different frequencies on the
transponder while changing the pressure into the encoder to verify it is
functioning correctly.
Mode C has nothing to do with EXPERIMENTAL catagory, but is required for
Class B airspace, so to with Class A(IFR). I am unfamiliar with the GRT
EFIS, does this have its own encoder built in or is it too connected to a
seperate encoder? If seperate, would it not be the same as my above test.
No one has ever checked the entire static system for leaks while checking
the transponder certificaion.
I'm not clear on how a static leak or error, would be discoverred if both
the encoder and the altimeter are hooked to the same static system? Approach
control radar does not determine ones altitude, that's why we have mode C.
The encoder is set to 29.92 and then we set the manual altimeter to current
barometric pressure, but if the encoder is hooked to the same static line
both will have errors when we give our initial reporting altitude. even when
they correct for the difference in barometric pressure, current vs. 29.92
I need a little help on this.
JOhn G.
>From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
>Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:05:05 -0400
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>
>I'm ready to start traveling around this great country in our RV-10 so I
>started looking into the XPDR Mode C certification and Pitot Static checks.
>I know the XPRD encoder check is required to operate Mode C. I spoke to
>the
>local avionics guy and he said they remove the altimeter and encoder from
>the airplane and hook it to the test equipment. Not possible with the GRT
>EFIS so we are looking into how to actually do this.
>
>The questions are:
> - is the pitot static check (run it up to 20K and see how it responds)
>required for an experimental to fly IFR?
> - How have folks performed the pitot static check (if required) and the
>XPDR encoder check with a GRT EFIS?
>
>Thanks
>Marcus
>
>Do not archive
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
I'm ready to start some night flying and have the standard wingtip lights
from Van's. My question is, does anyone have any recommendations on initial
aimpoints for the lights? Forward and a little down is where I'm planning
to start, but I was wondering if anyone has any experience and
recommendations? Of course, on my Navy exchange we didn't use the landing
lights at night, so maybe I'll go with that ;0
Marcus
Do not archive
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Our local avionics guy did the transponder check and some kind of
pitot/static check in the plane, then wired up a harness on his bench to
test the altimeter, encoder and the Dynon EFIS. Is it not possible to do
something similar with the GRT? He said that he needed to test everything
in the plane that was giving altitude information on his bench.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:05 PM
Subject: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
I'm ready to start traveling around this great country in our RV-10 so I
started looking into the XPDR Mode C certification and Pitot Static checks.
I know the XPRD encoder check is required to operate Mode C. I spoke to the
local avionics guy and he said they remove the altimeter and encoder from
the airplane and hook it to the test equipment. Not possible with the GRT
EFIS so we are looking into how to actually do this.
The questions are:
- is the pitot static check (run it up to 20K and see how it responds)
required for an experimental to fly IFR?
- How have folks performed the pitot static check (if required) and the
XPDR encoder check with a GRT EFIS?
Thanks
Marcus
Do not archive
--
--
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: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
The transponder check can be accomplished in the aircraft if it complies
with the required frequency stability. If it passes frequency then proceeds
to Mode C in the aircraft. The whole system is checked for leaks. Usually
the static system is sealed and a manual vacuum pump in a tester is used to
pump the system to an altitude a couple of thousand feet higher. The tester
then waits to determine altitude loss over time ; i.e. how fast the system
leaks down to ground level. If that passes, then the tester steps the
equipment up to altitude in increments and checks for leaks at each
interval. In most cases, leakage must be almost zero; however as altitude
increases some minor leakage is allowed. During the incremental test the
encoder is checked to see that the output to the transponder corresponds
closely to the visual altitude on the test equipment and on the altimeter in
the aircraft.
My recommendation is that as you are building you should have an avionics
guy visit you fuselage while its open to check for leaks, Tightening
fittings and use of Teflon tape can eliminate most leaks before the final
test. Its a whole lot easier to check when the various connections can be
accessed. Trouble shooting requires isolation of various parts of the system
and can be a bear if you have to open up a lot of access panels to get to
them.
As for the GRT, I suggest that the tester tap into the static system and
check for leaks, and then look for the correspondence on the GRT altitude
readout. The test equipment will show transponder altitude output. BTW,
encoders can have errors and my ACK has two pots on the top to adjust the
output higher and lower.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:43 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
>
> When I have had my bi-annual transponder certification on my sailplane,
> all they did was to hook a pressure device to the single airline going
> into the encoder and then run through all the different frequencies on the
> transponder while changing the pressure into the encoder to verify it is
> functioning correctly.
>
> Mode C has nothing to do with EXPERIMENTAL catagory, but is required for
> Class B airspace, so to with Class A(IFR). I am unfamiliar with the GRT
> EFIS, does this have its own encoder built in or is it too connected to a
> seperate encoder? If seperate, would it not be the same as my above test.
>
> No one has ever checked the entire static system for leaks while checking
> the transponder certificaion.
>
> I'm not clear on how a static leak or error, would be discoverred if both
> the encoder and the altimeter are hooked to the same static system?
> Approach control radar does not determine ones altitude, that's why we
> have mode C. The encoder is set to 29.92 and then we set the manual
> altimeter to current barometric pressure, but if the encoder is hooked to
> the same static line both will have errors when we give our initial
> reporting altitude. even when they correct for the difference in
> barometric pressure, current vs. 29.92
>
> I need a little help on this.
>
> JOhn G.
>
>
>>From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
>>Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:05:05 -0400
>>
>>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>>
>>I'm ready to start traveling around this great country in our RV-10 so I
>>started looking into the XPDR Mode C certification and Pitot Static
>>checks.
>>I know the XPRD encoder check is required to operate Mode C. I spoke to
>>the
>>local avionics guy and he said they remove the altimeter and encoder from
>>the airplane and hook it to the test equipment. Not possible with the GRT
>>EFIS so we are looking into how to actually do this.
>>
>>The questions are:
>> - is the pitot static check (run it up to 20K and see how it responds)
>>required for an experimental to fly IFR?
>> - How have folks performed the pitot static check (if required) and the
>>XPDR encoder check with a GRT EFIS?
>>
>>Thanks
>>Marcus
>>
>>Do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Landing lights |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Russell Daves" <dav1111@cox.net>
I have both my Van's wingtip lights pointed as far to the inside of the wing
as I can get them to screw in. Even then they are a little dark directly in
front of the airplane. They are great to show the runway edge on both sides
so it isn't really a problem for me.
Russ Daves
N710RV Flying
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:44 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Landing lights
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>
> I'm ready to start some night flying and have the standard wingtip lights
> from Van's. My question is, does anyone have any recommendations on
> initial
> aimpoints for the lights? Forward and a little down is where I'm planning
> to start, but I was wondering if anyone has any experience and
> recommendations? Of course, on my Navy exchange we didn't use the landing
> lights at night, so maybe I'll go with that ;0
>
> Marcus
> Do not archive
>
>
>
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: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I have a separate ACK A30.8 encoder that feeds my GTX330 and
GNS-480, but I previously did use the Air data of the EIS 6000
for my system too. Next test I'll be having to use the
pinpoint since my air data is now coming from that. During the
IFR pitot static test, they checked the pitot system for
speed and for leaks, and they checked the static system for
accuracy, but never did they have to remove it from the plane.
I do believe they hooked directly to the ACK at one point, and
since that is a TSO'd device, I consider that the one that
ATC would care about. But, the one that I myself really cared
about was the EIS 6000 before (and the pinpoint now), since
that's the one that will keep me away from the ground. I have
my ACK set for 10' resolution. The cool thing about the EIS
though was that the air data came out so that my accuracy
was within something like 7' all the way to 20K, since you could
put in some calibration factors. What's really cool too is
the pinpoint shows the *exact* same altitude as the EIS 6000,
and the *exact* same airspeed as well...and during the calibration
those were right on as well. The pinpoint has been tested
at the factory to something like 8' accuracy from zero to 40K'
or something like that.
Then, in testing the transponder, they did like John's reply
said....they cycled through the various codes, checking to
see what altitude it reported and what code it showed. I also
paid just that tad bit more and got the Mode S addition to
the IFR pitot static test done. That way they can verify if
your Mode S TIS information is displaying and working properly.
But, at no point did any of the equipment get removed from
the airplane to accomplish this. The cart was rolled next to the
rear step, and it was done inside a hanger.
If you can't accomplish a similar result with your local
place, maybe try calling around a bit. You should
be able to do what you need. Rumor has it though that
some people will not test the experimental, non-TSO'd
stuff. The guy that did mine didn't have a problem with
it, but he was very happy that I had the ACK encoder there,
because it gave him that comfort factor. To him, the
zeroing in on the EIS6000 was just a side benefit. He
was very impressed with the accuracy of the system though.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Marcus Cooper wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>
> I'm ready to start traveling around this great country in our RV-10 so I
> started looking into the XPDR Mode C certification and Pitot Static checks.
> I know the XPRD encoder check is required to operate Mode C. I spoke to the
> local avionics guy and he said they remove the altimeter and encoder from
> the airplane and hook it to the test equipment. Not possible with the GRT
> EFIS so we are looking into how to actually do this.
>
> The questions are:
> - is the pitot static check (run it up to 20K and see how it responds)
> required for an experimental to fly IFR?
> - How have folks performed the pitot static check (if required) and the
> XPDR encoder check with a GRT EFIS?
>
> Thanks
> Marcus
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
leakage for IFR is not acceptable. Check FAR 43 appendix E and F.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 5:42 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>
> John,
>
> The GRT encoder is built into the system and the same computer drives
> both
> the encoder and altimeter display so there's not going to be any
> difference.
> In that regard I guess I just have to shell out $75 for the Mode C
> sign-off
> even though it's a waste of time. As for the leak, I suspect they use a
> calibrated vacuum to raise the simulated altitude to make sure the
> altimeter
> reads the same. As for necessity, I doubt a leak would be that
> catastrophic
> as the pressure inside and out of the airplane are similar (as indicated
> by
> the alternate air source on most airplanes being in the cabin), although
> not
> exactly the same. Definitely an issue with pressurized airplanes, but I
> don't have one.
>
> What it really comes down to is I know I need the transponder (really
> encoder) certification to turn on the Mode C. Right now I just tell
> center
> every flight that I'm negative Mode C, but I'd sure like to turn it on.
> What I'm wondering, is if a pitot-static check is required for IFR flight?
>
> Marcus
> 40286
> Do not archive
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:44 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
>
> When I have had my bi-annual transponder certification on my sailplane,
> all
> they did was to hook a pressure device to the single airline going into
> the
> encoder and then run through all the different frequencies on the
> transponder while changing the pressure into the encoder to verify it is
> functioning correctly.
>
> Mode C has nothing to do with EXPERIMENTAL catagory, but is required for
> Class B airspace, so to with Class A(IFR). I am unfamiliar with the GRT
> EFIS, does this have its own encoder built in or is it too connected to a
> seperate encoder? If seperate, would it not be the same as my above test.
>
> No one has ever checked the entire static system for leaks while checking
> the transponder certificaion.
>
> I'm not clear on how a static leak or error, would be discoverred if both
> the encoder and the altimeter are hooked to the same static system?
> Approach
>
> control radar does not determine ones altitude, that's why we have mode C.
> The encoder is set to 29.92 and then we set the manual altimeter to
> current
> barometric pressure, but if the encoder is hooked to the same static line
> both will have errors when we give our initial reporting altitude. even
> when
>
> they correct for the difference in barometric pressure, current vs. 29.92
>
> I need a little help on this.
>
> JOhn G.
>
>
>>From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
>>Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:05:05 -0400
>>
>>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>>
>>I'm ready to start traveling around this great country in our RV-10 so I
>>started looking into the XPDR Mode C certification and Pitot Static
>>checks.
>>I know the XPRD encoder check is required to operate Mode C. I spoke to
>>the
>>local avionics guy and he said they remove the altimeter and encoder from
>>the airplane and hook it to the test equipment. Not possible with the GRT
>>EFIS so we are looking into how to actually do this.
>>
>>The questions are:
>> - is the pitot static check (run it up to 20K and see how it responds)
>>required for an experimental to fly IFR?
>> - How have folks performed the pitot static check (if required) and the
>>XPDR encoder check with a GRT EFIS?
>>
>>Thanks
>>Marcus
>>
>>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: | GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tom Deutsch" <deutscht@rhwhotels.com>
Can we do our own certifications if we have received a repairman's
certificate issued by the faa on our airplane?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:42 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
John,
The GRT encoder is built into the system and the same computer drives
both
the encoder and altimeter display so there's not going to be any
difference.
In that regard I guess I just have to shell out $75 for the Mode C
sign-off
even though it's a waste of time. As for the leak, I suspect they use a
calibrated vacuum to raise the simulated altitude to make sure the
altimeter
reads the same. As for necessity, I doubt a leak would be that
catastrophic
as the pressure inside and out of the airplane are similar (as indicated
by
the alternate air source on most airplanes being in the cabin), although
not
exactly the same. Definitely an issue with pressurized airplanes, but I
don't have one.
What it really comes down to is I know I need the transponder (really
encoder) certification to turn on the Mode C. Right now I just tell
center
every flight that I'm negative Mode C, but I'd sure like to turn it on.
What I'm wondering, is if a pitot-static check is required for IFR
flight?
Marcus
40286
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:44 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez"
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
When I have had my bi-annual transponder certification on my sailplane,
all
they did was to hook a pressure device to the single airline going into
the
encoder and then run through all the different frequencies on the
transponder while changing the pressure into the encoder to verify it is
functioning correctly.
Mode C has nothing to do with EXPERIMENTAL catagory, but is required for
Class B airspace, so to with Class A(IFR). I am unfamiliar with the GRT
EFIS, does this have its own encoder built in or is it too connected to
a
seperate encoder? If seperate, would it not be the same as my above
test.
No one has ever checked the entire static system for leaks while
checking
the transponder certificaion.
I'm not clear on how a static leak or error, would be discoverred if
both
the encoder and the altimeter are hooked to the same static system?
Approach
control radar does not determine ones altitude, that's why we have mode
C.
The encoder is set to 29.92 and then we set the manual altimeter to
current
barometric pressure, but if the encoder is hooked to the same static
line
both will have errors when we give our initial reporting altitude. even
when
they correct for the difference in barometric pressure, current vs.
29.92
I need a little help on this.
JOhn G.
>From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
>Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:05:05 -0400
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>
>I'm ready to start traveling around this great country in our RV-10 so
I
>started looking into the XPDR Mode C certification and Pitot Static
checks.
>I know the XPRD encoder check is required to operate Mode C. I spoke
to
>the
>local avionics guy and he said they remove the altimeter and encoder
from
>the airplane and hook it to the test equipment. Not possible with the
GRT
>EFIS so we are looking into how to actually do this.
>
>The questions are:
> - is the pitot static check (run it up to 20K and see how it
responds)
>required for an experimental to fly IFR?
> - How have folks performed the pitot static check (if required) and
the
>XPDR encoder check with a GRT EFIS?
>
>Thanks
>Marcus
>
>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: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Yes, the pitot static check is required for IFR flight, to the
best of my knowledge. Why anyone would fly IFR without one would
be beyond my understanding.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Marcus Cooper wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>
> John,
>
> The GRT encoder is built into the system and the same computer drives both
> the encoder and altimeter display so there's not going to be any difference.
> In that regard I guess I just have to shell out $75 for the Mode C sign-off
> even though it's a waste of time. As for the leak, I suspect they use a
> calibrated vacuum to raise the simulated altitude to make sure the altimeter
> reads the same. As for necessity, I doubt a leak would be that catastrophic
> as the pressure inside and out of the airplane are similar (as indicated by
> the alternate air source on most airplanes being in the cabin), although not
> exactly the same. Definitely an issue with pressurized airplanes, but I
> don't have one.
>
> What it really comes down to is I know I need the transponder (really
> encoder) certification to turn on the Mode C. Right now I just tell center
> every flight that I'm negative Mode C, but I'd sure like to turn it on.
> What I'm wondering, is if a pitot-static check is required for IFR flight?
>
> Marcus
> 40286
> Do not archive
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:44 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
>
> When I have had my bi-annual transponder certification on my sailplane, all
> they did was to hook a pressure device to the single airline going into the
> encoder and then run through all the different frequencies on the
> transponder while changing the pressure into the encoder to verify it is
> functioning correctly.
>
> Mode C has nothing to do with EXPERIMENTAL catagory, but is required for
> Class B airspace, so to with Class A(IFR). I am unfamiliar with the GRT
> EFIS, does this have its own encoder built in or is it too connected to a
> seperate encoder? If seperate, would it not be the same as my above test.
>
> No one has ever checked the entire static system for leaks while checking
> the transponder certificaion.
>
> I'm not clear on how a static leak or error, would be discoverred if both
> the encoder and the altimeter are hooked to the same static system? Approach
>
> control radar does not determine ones altitude, that's why we have mode C.
> The encoder is set to 29.92 and then we set the manual altimeter to current
> barometric pressure, but if the encoder is hooked to the same static line
> both will have errors when we give our initial reporting altitude. even when
>
> they correct for the difference in barometric pressure, current vs. 29.92
>
> I need a little help on this.
>
> JOhn G.
>
>
>> From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
>> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:05:05 -0400
>>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> I'm ready to start traveling around this great country in our RV-10 so I
>> started looking into the XPDR Mode C certification and Pitot Static checks.
>> I know the XPRD encoder check is required to operate Mode C. I spoke to
>> the
>> local avionics guy and he said they remove the altimeter and encoder from
>> the airplane and hook it to the test equipment. Not possible with the GRT
>> EFIS so we are looking into how to actually do this.
>>
>> The questions are:
>> - is the pitot static check (run it up to 20K and see how it responds)
>> required for an experimental to fly IFR?
>> - How have folks performed the pitot static check (if required) and the
>> XPDR encoder check with a GRT EFIS?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Marcus
>>
>> Do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
No. check FAR 43 appendix E and F. The calibrated equipment is costly and
you need the FAA's blessing. Neither IA or A&P is approved for same unless
separately blessed.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Deutsch" <deutscht@rhwhotels.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Tom Deutsch" <deutscht@rhwhotels.com>
>
> Can we do our own certifications if we have received a repairman's
> certificate issued by the faa on our airplane?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:42 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>
> John,
>
> The GRT encoder is built into the system and the same computer drives
> both
> the encoder and altimeter display so there's not going to be any
> difference.
> In that regard I guess I just have to shell out $75 for the Mode C
> sign-off
> even though it's a waste of time. As for the leak, I suspect they use a
> calibrated vacuum to raise the simulated altitude to make sure the
> altimeter
> reads the same. As for necessity, I doubt a leak would be that
> catastrophic
> as the pressure inside and out of the airplane are similar (as indicated
> by
> the alternate air source on most airplanes being in the cabin), although
> not
> exactly the same. Definitely an issue with pressurized airplanes, but I
> don't have one.
>
> What it really comes down to is I know I need the transponder (really
> encoder) certification to turn on the Mode C. Right now I just tell
> center
> every flight that I'm negative Mode C, but I'd sure like to turn it on.
> What I'm wondering, is if a pitot-static check is required for IFR
> flight?
>
> Marcus
> 40286
> Do not archive
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:44 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez"
> <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
>
> When I have had my bi-annual transponder certification on my sailplane,
> all
> they did was to hook a pressure device to the single airline going into
> the
> encoder and then run through all the different frequencies on the
> transponder while changing the pressure into the encoder to verify it is
>
> functioning correctly.
>
> Mode C has nothing to do with EXPERIMENTAL catagory, but is required for
>
> Class B airspace, so to with Class A(IFR). I am unfamiliar with the GRT
>
> EFIS, does this have its own encoder built in or is it too connected to
> a
> seperate encoder? If seperate, would it not be the same as my above
> test.
>
> No one has ever checked the entire static system for leaks while
> checking
> the transponder certificaion.
>
> I'm not clear on how a static leak or error, would be discoverred if
> both
> the encoder and the altimeter are hooked to the same static system?
> Approach
>
> control radar does not determine ones altitude, that's why we have mode
> C.
> The encoder is set to 29.92 and then we set the manual altimeter to
> current
> barometric pressure, but if the encoder is hooked to the same static
> line
> both will have errors when we give our initial reporting altitude. even
> when
>
> they correct for the difference in barometric pressure, current vs.
> 29.92
>
> I need a little help on this.
>
> JOhn G.
>
>
>>From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: RV10-List: GRT EFIS & Pitot Static Check
>>Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:05:05 -0400
>>
>>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@bellsouth.net>
>>
>>I'm ready to start traveling around this great country in our RV-10 so
> I
>>started looking into the XPDR Mode C certification and Pitot Static
> checks.
>>I know the XPRD encoder check is required to operate Mode C. I spoke
> to
>>the
>>local avionics guy and he said they remove the altimeter and encoder
> from
>>the airplane and hook it to the test equipment. Not possible with the
> GRT
>>EFIS so we are looking into how to actually do this.
>>
>>The questions are:
>> - is the pitot static check (run it up to 20K and see how it
> responds)
>>required for an experimental to fly IFR?
>> - How have folks performed the pitot static check (if required) and
> the
>>XPDR encoder check with a GRT EFIS?
>>
>>Thanks
>>Marcus
>>
>>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: | RV 10s in Scottsdale, AZ |
I am in Scottsdale all week.was curious if anyone was building in the ar
ea. Would love to see your project and help build if you are working on
it. respond to my email......will have most time on thursday nite.
Dean
40449
________________________________________________________________________
<html><P>I am in Scottsdale all week.was curious if anyone was building
in the area. Would love to see your project and help build if you
are working on it. respond to my email......will have most t
ime on thursday nite.</P>
<P>Dean</P>
<P>40449</P>
<font face="Times-New-Roman" size="2"><br><br>______________________
__________________________________________________<br>
Visit <a href="http://www.juno.com/value">http://www.juno.com/value</a
> to sign up today!<br></font>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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! --
|