RV10-List Digest Archive

Mon 10/16/06


Total Messages Posted: 35



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 03:52 AM - Re: E-Drill Bushing location (Stovall Todd Lt Col AF/A4RX)
     2. 03:56 AM - Re: Weldment part (Link McGarity)
     3. 05:29 AM - Re: Re: engines (Kelly McMullen)
     4. 05:42 AM - Re: E-Drill Bushing location (Phillips, Jack)
     5. 05:49 AM - Re: Weldment part (zackrv8)
     6. 07:35 AM - Re: Re: engines (John Gonzalez)
     7. 08:02 AM - Re: Re: Weldment part (Vern W. Smith)
     8. 08:16 AM - Re: Re: engines (James K Hovis)
     9. 09:09 AM - Re: Re: engines (Tim Olson)
    10. 09:25 AM - Re: Re: engines (John W. Cox)
    11. 09:34 AM - Re: Weldment part (zackrv8)
    12. 10:01 AM - Re: Re: engines (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
    13. 10:13 AM - Re: Re: engines (James K Hovis)
    14. 10:39 AM - Re: Re: engines (Scott Schmidt)
    15. 10:44 AM - Re: Kit Contents: was Vans Alternator (Ronald L Owen)
    16. 10:51 AM - Re: Re: engines (Robin Marks)
    17. 10:51 AM - Re: Re: engines (Jesse Saint)
    18. 11:17 AM - Re: Re: engines (John W. Cox)
    19. 11:22 AM - Re: Re: engines (Deems Davis)
    20. 11:28 AM - Re: Re: engines (John W. Cox)
    21. 11:32 AM - Re: Re: engines (Tim Olson)
    22. 12:00 PM - Re: Re: engines (Phillips, Jack)
    23. 12:45 PM - Re: Re: engines (Tom Deutsch)
    24. 12:55 PM - Re: Re: engines (Tim Olson)
    25. 01:13 PM - Re: Kit Contents: was Vans Alternator (Jesse Saint)
    26. 01:18 PM - Re: Re: engines (John W. Cox)
    27. 01:30 PM - Re: Re: engines (Deems Davis)
    28. 02:27 PM - Re: Re: engines (Scott Schmidt)
    29. 06:18 PM - Re: Weldment part (johngoodman)
    30. 06:57 PM - Re: engines (johngoodman)
    31. 07:16 PM - Re: Re: engines (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
    32. 08:21 PM - Elevator skin repair suggestions (jdalton77@comcast.net)
    33. 08:23 PM - Re: Re: engines (John Dunne)
    34. 10:22 PM - Re: Elevator skin repair suggestions (Jim Beyer)
    35. 11:55 PM - Top Mount Antennas (McGANN, Ron)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 03:52:36 AM PST US
    Subject: E-Drill Bushing location
    From: "Stovall Todd Lt Col AF/A4RX" <Todd.Stovall@pentagon.af.mil>
    Jeff, Look in bag 1001. That's where it is according to the inventory sheet. I can't verifiy at the moment 'cause I'm at work. Todd -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of jdalton77@comcast.net Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 3:31 PM Subject: RV10-List: E-Drill Bushing location I'm assembling the elevator/HS and I can't seem to find anything in the parts that resembles the "E-Drill Bushing" for drilling the elevator horns. It's describes as a steel 1/4" diameter 1" long tube. Did anyone else have trouble finding this? Jeff


    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
    Time: 03:56:49 AM PST US
    From: Link McGarity <wv4i@bellsouth.net>
    Subject: Re: Weldment part
    --> RV10-List message posted by: Link McGarity <wv4i@bellsouth.net> If you don't buy the pre fab HS attach brackets, be very careful as to dimensions, hole sizes and positioning, etc. I did not catch that the widths are different, had to order new angle stock fm Air Parts, and do them again, etc.. Not difficult to make these parts incorrectly. Definitely want to catch before drilling HS front spar...All considered, I would just buy the pre fab HS attach brackets, and save time. Probably other items too. Thanks to all for heads up and info. Link McGarity #40622 Elevator


    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
    Time: 05:29:33 AM PST US
    From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: engines
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com> You aren't going to find many 4 or 6 cyl engines as smooth as your O-300. The I/O-540 certainly is not nearly as smooth. But with a well balanced prop, at more than taxi power you really won't notice that much difference flying along, whether behind a 4 or 6 running smoothly. On 10/14/06, LIKE2LOOP@aol.com <LIKE2LOOP@aol.com> wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/14/2006 2:56:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, > ajhauter@yahoo.com writes: > > Has anybody (besides me) considered putting a 4 cylinder lyc (or derivative) > in > the 10? > > I am currently flying a Cessna 170 with a 6 cylinder Continental 0-300. > I would NEVER go back to a horizontally opposed 4 cylinder engine. > SOOOOoooooo much smoother. Less vibration and ultimately less stress on the > internal parts if you do the math as to how much horse power each cylinder > has to put out. If you want great economy, just throtle the IO-540 back to > 50% power and you will save tons on fuel and still go faster then most spam > cans with dome shaped rivets in the breeze. If you change the engine, you > then have to redesign the entire front end and deal with the W & B issues > that are significant. What is the value of trying to use a 4 cylinder > engine? Less reserve power, less performance??? > > Steve > > DO NOT ARCHIVE > > Stephen Blank #40499 > 766 SE River Lane > Port St. Lucie, FL 34983 > > 772-475-5556 cell - evenings and weekends > >


    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
    Time: 05:42:50 AM PST US
    Subject: E-Drill Bushing location
    From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
    In the "For what it's worth" category, I happened to visit the Van's factory last Monday (and got a quick flight in N410RV), and bought the new WD-415-1's while I was there. They look much better than the originals that came with my kit, with a better weld along the back (where the original had its only weld) and a really beefy weld along the front side. Jack Phillips # 40610 Raleigh, NC -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Beyer Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 5:07 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: E-Drill Bushing location Jeff, Mine is in bag # 1001 along with the two WD-415, Trim Cable Anchors. Which reminds me....I need to get the new WD-415-1's from Van's for $8...or the milled ones from, uh, can't remember the web site's name now, for $38 -- decisions? Hope that helps. -Jim On 10/15/06, jdalton77@comcast.net <jdalton77@comcast.net> wrote: I'm assembling the elevator/HS and I can't seem to find anything in the parts that resembles the "E-Drill Bushing" for drilling the elevator horns. It's describes as a steel 1/4" diameter 1" long tube. Did anyone else have trouble finding this? Jeff _________________________________________________ This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege d, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it i n error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited. Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N


    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
    Time: 05:49:00 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Weldment part
    From: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net> Also, when I first put on Vans Weldment, the angle of the weldment/nut was wrong because the trim cables would bind against the elevator spar too much. Dave fixed that with the new replacement. Notice the part number of Vans weldment. It was first used on the RV4 manual trim (maybe even the RV3!). Zack [quote="fehdxl(at)gmail.com"]Fellow builders, Just to summarize...there are three generations of Van's WD-415's ... v1: no aft weld (single weld across the front of the nut) v2: one long weld across the front of the nut and a small tack weld on the aft side of the nut v3: full width welds on both sides of the nut (Also known as WD-415-1). http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb06-9-20.pdf (http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb06-9-20.pdf) Question for those who bought RivetHeadAero's version http://www.rivethead-aero.com/rv10_005.htm (http://www.rivethead-aero.com/rv10_005.htm) ... it's all aluminum, milled from a solid block, right Any concerns about switching from steel to aluminum? Thanks! -Jim 40603 do not archive > [b] -------- RV8 #80125 RV10 # 40512 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68154#68154


    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
    Time: 07:35:58 AM PST US
    From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
    Subject: Re: engines
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com> Well said John! Thank you! John G. 409 Do Not archive >From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> >To: <rv10-list@matronics.com> >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines >Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0700 > >--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> > >Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement "~20% >of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific >based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"? > >I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except N210RV. >That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental). No >science used in this conclusion. I'm baffled. > >John Cox >________________________________________ >From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks >Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM >To: rv10-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines > >John, > Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when >you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am all for >the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) but one >day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate choice and >regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should expect to >shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time limiting the >total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These >numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with alternate >engines) > When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an >alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any potential >savings. > A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v. >Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their >respective traits is the significant increase in build time between the >Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other choices >are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build >hours actually flying. > >Robin > >


    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
    Time: 08:02:13 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Weldment part
    From: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern@teclabsinc.com>
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern@teclabsinc.com> Zack, Do the rivet holes for Dave's "weldments" line up with the rivet holes from Van's? I installed the version 2 units from Vans along time ago and was wondering if I need to replace the access panels when using the machined ones. Vern (324 fuselage:) Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of zackrv8 Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:46 AM Subject: RV10-List: Re: Weldment part --> RV10-List message posted by: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net> Also, when I first put on Vans Weldment, the angle of the weldment/nut was wrong because the trim cables would bind against the elevator spar too much. Dave fixed that with the new replacement. Notice the part number of Vans weldment. It was first used on the RV4 manual trim (maybe even the RV3!). Zack


    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
    Time: 08:16:07 AM PST US
    From: "James K Hovis" <james.k.hovis@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: engines
    I wouldn't worry too much about using a lighter, less performing engine in the 210 - 230 HP range if you can live with a little loss of performance. Weight and balance is fairly easy to deal with, move the battery forward to the firewall and make provisions to add lead ballast. The firewall is typically pretty stout and should be able to handle the loading from the battery and a few pounds of lead. I would wait to add any ballast up front until after an empty aircraft weight and balance check is done. If the CG is outside limits, then add ballast as needed. Do check with Van's about ballast installation on the firewall if needed. You could end up with an aircraft with a lighter empty weight which translates into more useful load or more weight to add more avionic goodies. Everything in aircraft design and performance is a trade-off, give up some top-end performance and get a few more pounds for other things. Van's specs for 260 vs. 210 HP don't look too bad. At gross you lose about 10MPH of speed, but climb rate suffers more at about 300 fps loss. However, at 1,150 fps, it still climbs better than most spam-cans weighing 2,700 lbs.... JKH On 10/16/06, John Gonzalez <indigoonlatigo@msn.com> wrote: > > --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com> > > Well said John! > > Thank you! > > John G. 409 > Do Not archive > > > >From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> > >To: <rv10-list@matronics.com> > >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines > >Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0700 > > > >--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> > > > >Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement "~20% > >of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific > >based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"? > > > >I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except N210RV. > >That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental). No > >science used in this conclusion. I'm baffled. > > > >John Cox > >________________________________________ > >From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks > >Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM > >To: rv10-list@matronics.com > >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines > > > >John, > > Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when > >you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am all for > >the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) but one > >day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate choice > and > >regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should expect > to > >shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time limiting the > >total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These > >numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with > alternate > >engines) > > When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an > >alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any potential > >savings. > > A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v. > >Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their > >respective traits is the significant increase in build time between the > >Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other choices > >are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build > >hours actually flying. > > > >Robin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >


    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
    Time: 09:09:00 AM PST US
    From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
    Subject: Re: engines
    --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> Man, if people want to fly slow planes with poor performance at altitude, it would he a heck of a lot cheaper to just buy a spotless Cherokee/Sundowner/Sierra or something like that. The RV-10 does great with a plain IO-540, but I sure wouldn't have wanted to be climbing around on my flights this past week with a 4-cyl 200hp engine. The RV-10 is well suited for 8000-14000' crusing, but why put an anemic 4-cyl in it and wreck a beautiful plane? The 210 continental is a nice enough engine, but again, where are the real significant benefits...more build time, more mods. If you want MoGas, go with the O-540 then. For the 4-cyl fans though, I can only hope that someone actually DOES this soon so that people can learn how disappointing it would be...and it can deter others from going down the road to a probable mistake. I'll put it this way.... An IO-540 is not too much engine for the RV-10, and it's not too little. Climbing out of LOE (5T6), we were getting 800-900fpm in standard climb config. Isn't that slow enough? Putting more HP isn't really necessary though either. Only a rare handful of people would ever even think about cruising the RV-10 at altitudes above 18,000'. I think Van's actually got it very right on the engine...oh, and the plane too. Just got back from LOE....put on over 20 hours and over 3000nm this week. There's going to be one heck of a trip story to see when I can get it posted. Oops, almost forgot: More specs coming, but how does 160-163 kts on 8.6gph sound? 4-cyl.....HA! Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive James K Hovis wrote: > I wouldn't worry too much about using a lighter, less performing engine > in the 210 - 230 HP range if you can live with a little loss of > performance. Weight and balance is fairly easy to deal with, move the > battery forward to the firewall and make provisions to add lead ballast. > The firewall is typically pretty stout and should be able to handle the > loading from the battery and a few pounds of lead. I would wait to add > any ballast up front until after an empty aircraft weight and balance > check is done. If the CG is outside limits, then add ballast as > needed. Do check with Van's about ballast installation on the firewall > if needed. You could end up with an aircraft with a lighter empty > weight which translates into more useful load or more weight to add more > avionic goodies. > > Everything in aircraft design and performance is a trade-off, give up > some top-end performance and get a few more pounds for other things. > Van's specs for 260 vs. 210 HP don't look too bad. At gross you lose > about 10MPH of speed, but climb rate suffers more at about 300 fps loss. > However, at 1,150 fps, it still climbs better than most spam-cans > weighing 2,700 lbs.... > > > JKH > > > On 10/16/06, *John Gonzalez* <indigoonlatigo@msn.com > <mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com>> wrote: > > --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" < > indigoonlatigo@msn.com <mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com>> > > Well said John! > > Thank you! > > John G. 409 > Do Not archive > > > > > > >From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com > <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>> > >To: <rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>> > >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines > >Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0700 > > > >--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" > <johnwcox@pacificnw.com <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>> > > > >Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your > statement "~20% > >of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY > scientific > >based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"? > > > >I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except > N210RV. > >That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental). No > >science used in this conclusion. I'm baffled. > > > >John Cox > >________________________________________ > >From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com> > >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>] On Behalf Of Robin Marks > >Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM > >To: rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com> > >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines > > > >John, > > Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when > >you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am > all for > >the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) > but one > >day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate > choice and > >regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should > expect to > >shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time > limiting the > >total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects. > (These > >numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with > alternate > >engines) > > When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an > >alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any > potential > >savings. > > A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v. > >Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their > >respective traits is the significant increase in build time > between the > >Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other > choices > >are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build > >hours actually flying. > > > >Robin > > > > > > > > * > > > *


    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
    Time: 09:25:17 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: engines
    From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
    A reduction of 260 to 210 is a 19.2% reduction in BHP. To maintain the same robust HP/Weight and not have an anemic performer, then the gross weight would have to be reduced to 2208 pounds. For simpletons like me that's 492 pounds of offloaded fuel or passengers cause there just is not that much difference in powerplant weight saved on the empty weight side of the equation. I guess that means a RV-9 with a four banger. Now where is my math supporting a more anemic engine. Oh, yeh - four cylinders instead of six, Fuel Consumption. Oh, no - I forgot about pulling the throttle back and running a more anemic power output. Thus saving the throttle for the quick go arounds and climbouts to avoid weather. Not all tradeoff are equal in logic. This reminds me of 17 friends who embraced the idea of putting =BD VW engines (yes two cylinders) in Nieuport replicas. I pointed out that with a 254 pound body weight the thing might not fly. He bailed on the project and watched the first prototype crash from lack of power. Conclusion, Van has done a pretty good job with the mission statement of the 4 place RV-10 with a six banger. Now with this logic is there anyone willing to consider a 9 cylinder, 360 hp radial? Kimball did it to satisfy those frustrated four cylinder owners with Pitts. JWC ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:16 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines I wouldn't worry too much about using a lighter, less performing engine in the 210 - 230 HP range if you can live with a little loss of performance. Weight and balance is fairly easy to deal with, move the battery forward to the firewall and make provisions to add lead ballast. The firewall is typically pretty stout and should be able to handle the loading from the battery and a few pounds of lead. I would wait to add any ballast up front until after an empty aircraft weight and balance check is done. If the CG is outside limits, then add ballast as needed. Do check with Van's about ballast installation on the firewall if needed. You could end up with an aircraft with a lighter empty weight which translates into more useful load or more weight to add more avionic goodies. Everything in aircraft design and performance is a trade-off, give up some top-end performance and get a few more pounds for other things. Van's specs for 260 vs. 210 HP don't look too bad. At gross you lose about 10MPH of speed, but climb rate suffers more at about 300 fps loss. However, at 1,150 fps, it still climbs better than most spam-cans weighing 2,700 lbs.... JKH On 10/16/06, John Gonzalez <indigoonlatigo@msn.com> wrote: --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" < indigoonlatigo@msn.com <mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com> > Well said John! Thank you! John G. 409 Do Not archive >From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com > >To: <rv10-list@matronics.com> >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines >Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0700 > >--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> > >Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement "~20% >of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific >based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"? > >I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except N210RV. >That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental). No >science used in this conclusion. I'm baffled. > >John Cox >________________________________________ >From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks >Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM >To: rv10-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines > >John, > Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when >you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am all for >the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) but one >day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate choice and >regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should expect to >shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time limiting the >total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These >numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with alternate >engines) > When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an >alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any potential >savings. > A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v. >Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their >respective traits is the significant increase in build time between the >Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other choices >are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build >hours actually flying. > >Robin >


    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
    Time: 09:34:53 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Weldment part
    From: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net> Vern, You might need to replace them if you already drilled the holes for the old weldment. Daves part has a slightly wider footprint. However, it might work but I don't know for sure because I never drilled the holes in Vans weldment because the darn thing would not line up without bending the trim cables to the point of binding them. Maybe Anh Vu can chime in here. He had the old weldments on and switched to Dave's billet parts. Zack Vern(at)teclabsinc.com wrote: > Zack, > > Do the rivet holes for Dave's "weldments" line up with the rivet holes > from Van's? I installed the version 2 units from Vans along time ago and > was wondering if I need to replace the access panels when using the > machined ones. > > Vern (324 fuselage:) > > Do not archive > > -- -------- RV8 #80125 RV10 # 40512 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68213#68213


    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
    Time: 10:01:42 AM PST US
    From: GRANSCOTT@aol.com
    Subject: Re: engines
    Genrally putting the battery on the firewall will shorten the life of a battery plus if you do put the battery on the firewall, you should consider creating an easy access to it's location...having the battery close to the starter may not be a bad thing as there is less line lose in the distance from the firewall to the starter as opposed to a location in the rear of the aircraft. P


    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
    Time: 10:13:58 AM PST US
    From: "James K Hovis" <james.k.hovis@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: engines
    I think you're slightly missing the point. If you have two identical airframes sitting side-by-side and the only difference is one has a 210hp engine and the other has a 260, you WILL see differences in performance. To me, it's really a matter of the individual builder to decide what type of mission he/she wishes to fly. According to Van's data, you lose about 10 mp h in flight speeds, lose 300 fps in climb rate but gain about 125 miles in range (implying better fuel efficiency) (I'd like to see these numbers verified, but Van's has a pretty good track record of meeting the performance figures they publish). Sure, you can back off power in cruise with an O-540 and match the range figures for a 210hp engine, what's your trade-off when you do so? Speed. Personally, I'd rather have the horsepower reserve from a big engine and fly it more economically, say at 165 mph or so. Going fast isn't that big of a deal to me, a 100kt C-150 is still quicker than a car for most "long distance" trips. If I can get a hold of a 210-230hp engine that is significantly cheaper than the 260hp Lycs while weighing equal to or less than the "stock" engine, I will seriously conside r it. Having to do some additional engineering and fabrication for a "non-stock" engine shouldn't be a killer either. As I point out you could end up with a lighter installation which has it's own benefits to the airplane's mission. However, I don't see how a TIO-360 installation would b e cheaper than and in then end, more reliable than the straight O-540. Don't think that I'm endorsing automotive installations, it is RARE that a 260 hp car engine will weigh less than an O-540 once you consider reduction drive, radiator, etc. needed for such installations. Again, my main point, if you can live with a lower performing airplane, a smaller engine might be better for YOU if the resulting mission capabilitie s conform to the mission you wish to have. As a simple IFR family truckster, a 210 hp engine might not be too bad. JKH On 10/16/06, John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote: > > A reduction of 260 to 210 is a 19.2% reduction in BHP. To maintain the > same robust HP/Weight and not have an anemic performer, then the gross > weight would have to be reduced to 2208 pounds. > > > For simpletons like me that's 492 pounds of offloaded fuel or passengers > cause there just is not that much difference in powerplant weight saved o n > the empty weight side of the equation. I guess that means a RV-9 with a > four banger. Now where is my math supporting a more anemic engine. Oh, y eh > ' four cylinders instead of six, Fuel Consumption. Oh, no ' I forgot about > pulling the throttle back and running a more anemic power output. Thus > saving the throttle for the quick go arounds and climbouts to avoid weath er. > > > Not all tradeoff are equal in logic. This reminds me of 17 friends who > embraced the idea of putting =BD VW engines (yes two cylinders) in Nieupo rt > replicas. I pointed out that with a 254 pound body weight the thing migh t > not fly. He bailed on the project and watched the first prototype crash > from lack of power. Conclusion, Van has done a pretty good job with the > mission statement of the 4 place RV-10 with a six banger. Now with this > logic is there anyone willing to consider a 9 cylinder, 360 hp radial? > Kimball did it to satisfy those frustrated four cylinder owners with Pitt s. > > > JWC > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto: > owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *James K Hovis > *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2006 8:16 AM > *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: engines > > > I wouldn't worry too much about using a lighter, less performing engine i n > the 210 - 230 HP range if you can live with a little loss of > performance. Weight and balance is fairly easy to deal with, move the > battery forward to the firewall and make provisions to add lead ballast. The > firewall is typically pretty stout and should be able to handle the loadi ng > from the battery and a few pounds of lead. I would wait to add any ballas t > up front until after an empty aircraft weight and balance check is done. If > the CG is outside limits, then add ballast as needed. Do check with Van's > about ballast installation on the firewall if needed. You could end up wi th > an aircraft with a lighter empty weight which translates into more useful > load or more weight to add more avionic goodies. > > > Everything in aircraft design and performance is a trade-off, give up som e > top-end performance and get a few more pounds for other things. Van's sp ecs > for 260 vs. 210 HP don't look too bad. At gross you lose about 10MPH of > speed, but climb rate suffers more at about 300 fps loss. However, at 1,1 50 > fps, it still climbs better than most spam-cans weighing 2,700 lbs.... > > > JKH > > > On 10/16/06, *John Gonzalez* <indigoonlatigo@msn.com> wrote: > > --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" < indigoonlatigo@msn.com > > > Well said John! > > Thank you! > > John G. 409 > Do Not archive > > > >From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com > > >To: <rv10-list@matronics.com> > >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines > >Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0700 > > > >--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> > > > >Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement "~20 % > > >of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific > >based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"? > > > >I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except N210RV . > > >That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental). No > >science used in this conclusion. I'm baffled. > > > >John Cox > >________________________________________ > >From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks > >Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM > >To: rv10-list@matronics.com > >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines > > > >John, > > Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when > >you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am all for > >the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) but on e > >day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate choice > and > >regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should expect > to > >shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time limiting the > >total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These > >numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with > alternate > >engines) > > When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an > >alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any potentia l > > >savings. > > A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v. > >Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their > >respective traits is the significant increase in build time between the > >Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other choice s > >are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build > >hours actually flying. > > > >Robin > > > > > * * > > * * > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > * * > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > >


    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
    Time: 10:39:10 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: engines
    From: "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt@ussynthetic.com>
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt@ussynthetic.com> Six Cylinders Truck - Four Cylinders Suck! (I have the same battle with the snowboarders but in that case, 4 edges truck and two edges suck) Go fly in Van's 410RV and then make your decision. Scott Schmidt -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 10:08 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> Man, if people want to fly slow planes with poor performance at altitude, it would he a heck of a lot cheaper to just buy a spotless Cherokee/Sundowner/Sierra or something like that. The RV-10 does great with a plain IO-540, but I sure wouldn't have wanted to be climbing around on my flights this past week with a 4-cyl 200hp engine. The RV-10 is well suited for 8000-14000' crusing, but why put an anemic 4-cyl in it and wreck a beautiful plane? The 210 continental is a nice enough engine, but again, where are the real significant benefits...more build time, more mods. If you want MoGas, go with the O-540 then. For the 4-cyl fans though, I can only hope that someone actually DOES this soon so that people can learn how disappointing it would be...and it can deter others from going down the road to a probable mistake. I'll put it this way.... An IO-540 is not too much engine for the RV-10, and it's not too little. Climbing out of LOE (5T6), we were getting 800-900fpm in standard climb config. Isn't that slow enough? Putting more HP isn't really necessary though either. Only a rare handful of people would ever even think about cruising the RV-10 at altitudes above 18,000'. I think Van's actually got it very right on the engine...oh, and the plane too. Just got back from LOE....put on over 20 hours and over 3000nm this week. There's going to be one heck of a trip story to see when I can get it posted. Oops, almost forgot: More specs coming, but how does 160-163 kts on 8.6gph sound? 4-cyl.....HA! Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive James K Hovis wrote: > I wouldn't worry too much about using a lighter, less performing engine > in the 210 - 230 HP range if you can live with a little loss of > performance. Weight and balance is fairly easy to deal with, move the > battery forward to the firewall and make provisions to add lead ballast. > The firewall is typically pretty stout and should be able to handle the > loading from the battery and a few pounds of lead. I would wait to add > any ballast up front until after an empty aircraft weight and balance > check is done. If the CG is outside limits, then add ballast as > needed. Do check with Van's about ballast installation on the firewall > if needed. You could end up with an aircraft with a lighter empty > weight which translates into more useful load or more weight to add more > avionic goodies. > > Everything in aircraft design and performance is a trade-off, give up > some top-end performance and get a few more pounds for other things. > Van's specs for 260 vs. 210 HP don't look too bad. At gross you lose > about 10MPH of speed, but climb rate suffers more at about 300 fps loss. > However, at 1,150 fps, it still climbs better than most spam-cans > weighing 2,700 lbs.... > > > JKH > > > On 10/16/06, *John Gonzalez* <indigoonlatigo@msn.com > <mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com>> wrote: > > --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" < > indigoonlatigo@msn.com <mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com>> > > Well said John! > > Thank you! > > John G. 409 > Do Not archive > > > > > > >From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com > <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>> <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com> > >To: <rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>> > >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines > >Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0700 > > > >--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" > <johnwcox@pacificnw.com <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>> > > > >Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your > statement "~20% > >of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY > scientific > >based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"? > > > >I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except > N210RV. > >That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental). No > >science used in this conclusion. I'm baffled. > > > >John Cox > >________________________________________ > >From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com> > >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>] On Behalf Of Robin Marks > >Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM > >To: rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com> > >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines > > > >John, > > Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when > >you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am > all for > >the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) > but one > >day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate > choice and > >regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should > expect to > >shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time > limiting the > >total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects. > (These > >numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with > alternate > >engines) > > When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an > >alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any > potential > >savings. > > A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v. > >Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their > >respective traits is the significant increase in build time > between the > >Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other > choices > >are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build > >hours actually flying. > > > >Robin > > > > > > > > * > > > *


    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
    Time: 10:44:49 AM PST US
    From: "Ronald L Owen" <flywithme@hughes.net>
    Subject: Re: Kit Contents: was Vans Alternator
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "Ronald L Owen" <flywithme@hughes.net> Dear Tim My name is Ron Owen and I stared my RV10 Project in mid July. Your web site is a welth of information and have enjoyed it very much, thanks. Hope you have time for a ?. I am working on the design of my panel and wonder if you know where to get actual size pictures of the different instruments. Thanks Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:54 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kit Contents: was Vans Alternator > --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> > > Some of them aren't all that recent, but should be a good start. > If there are builders willing to fax me their recent kit > contents lists as they get their new kit sections, I can post > updated ones that have any changes. 715-858-1681 and it will > do a fax-to-tif that I can easily post. Black out your personal > info before faxing if you want. Another good option is to > scan them and print into a .pdf if you have that capability. > > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying > do not archive > > > Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote: >> Ron, >> >> Tim Olson has contents for all of the kits posted on his web site at >> http://www.myrv10.com/tips/kits/index.html >> >> Bob #40105 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *McGANN, Ron >> (AUS BAeA) >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 12, 2006 5:46 PM >> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com >> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Vans Alternator >> >> The really disappointing thing about this is that I could not find the >> contents of the IO-540 FWF kit listed anywhere on Van's website. The >> Master relay, starter relay and Battery as listed on their web site as >> included, ARE NOT provided in the 540 kit nor could I find any options to >> change the alternator. Returning the alternator for a refund/replacement >> from Oz is a pain in the agates. >> >> Ron >> >> -----Original Message----- >> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]*On Behalf Of* RV >> Builder (Michael Sausen) >> *Sent:* Thursday, 12 October 2006 10:49 PM >> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com >> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Vans Alternator >> >> If anyone is ordering the FWF kit from Vans, I recommend you >> replace the standard 60amp alt with the deluxe model. The stock one >> is just an auto alternator where the deluxe one is a Plane Power >> alternator at a very attractive reduced price. From Vans it is >> $375 Plane Powers list price is $569. >> >> Michael Sausen >> >> -10 #352 Fuselage >> >> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Sam >> Marlow >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:59 PM >> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com >> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Vans Alternator >> >> I know of at least 2 that didn't make it to the first 100 hrs! >> >> McGANN, Ron wrote: >> >> All, >> >> Just unpacked my FWF kit. Was planning on the B&C alternator and >> external reg. Forgot to exclude the Vans ES 60 amp alt from the FWF kit. >> Backup will be the B&C 20 amp with ext reg. Any negative >> comments/experiences with the Vans unit?? >> >> cheers, >> >> Ron >> >> 187 - trimming windows. >> >> * * >> >> http://www.matronic - NEW MATRONICS also available via the >> Web ===================<NBSP;&NBSP;&NBSP;&NBSP; >> WIKI="=================</PRP;&NBSP;&NBSP; List - ** >> >> * * >> >> * * >> >> * * >> >> >> *href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* >> >> * * >> >> * * >> >> * * >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> * * >> >> * >> >> >> * > > >


    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
    Time: 10:51:48 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: engines
    From: "Robin Marks" <robin1@mrmoisture.com>
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "Robin Marks" <robin1@mrmoisture.com> John, That was the humor part of the email thus the bold HIGHLY. As there are almost no -10 sales recorded and basically no alternate engines let alone sales of alternate engine -10's. My fundamental point is that if one wanted to go the alternate engine route for fuel / power plant savings that they would ultimately experience the "expense" an alternate engine costs at resale. I looked at a beautiful 7A slider with a Subaru engine mounted up front. It was as nice (panel & build) as the $110K 7's that have sold except the seller was having a hard time getting $70K for it. IMHO most prospective RV buyers were not willing to take the risk of owning an alternate engine especially when they don't have the experience of an alternate engine installation or are the holders of the planes repairman's certificate. Happy flying, Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:23 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement "~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"? I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except N210RV. That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental). No science used in this conclusion. I'm baffled. John Cox


    Message 17


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:51:49 AM PST US
    From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
    Subject: Re: engines
    I like the discussion I am reading about this. I agree completely with Tim=92s last post. The IO-540 is perfect for most missions on both economy at altitude and take-off/climb performance. The main problem with the 540 is the upfront cost and the lack of power that might be achievable at altitude with a turbo-normalized engine. Ideally, normalizing a 540 to get more than 80hp at 18k (rough number estimates based on our flying experience in N256H) would be great, maybe even reaching a 200Kt cruise speed. That is what I would like to see happen. The cost of a turbo is high, which would be the only reason for possibly going with a smaller engine and a turbo. You really can perform well at sea level with less power, and it doesn=92t make any sense (IMHO) to cruise low because of the fuel burn, so the HP down low is just used to get you up high. You can get as good or better range with a 540 than with a 360 Continental because of the altitude performance (probably, not knowing numbers because Van=92s doesn=92t publish 15k feet performance on their planes). Again, having more power doesn=92t have to be used if you don=92t want it (again, following Tim=92s comments), but I think I might be willing to sacrifice a little power down low to get more up high. How much would it cost for a Superior 400 with a turbonormalizer? Might we worth a try. To further this discussion, for those flying, what does the sweet speed of economy seem to be in indicated airspeed? I think it is probably about 120Kts or so. You can=92t get that at 18k normally aspirated, so how many horsepower would it take to get that speed up high, and how fast would that be in TAS at standard temps? That=92s what I would like to see. 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 James K Hovis Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:13 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines I think you're slightly missing the point. If you have two identical airframes sitting side-by-side and the only difference is one has a 210hp engine and the other has a 260, you WILL see differences in performance. To me, it's really a matter of the individual builder to decide what type of mission he/she wishes to fly. According to Van's data, you lose about 10 mph in flight speeds, lose 300 fps in climb rate but gain about 125 miles in range (implying better fuel efficiency) (I'd like to see these numbers verified, but Van's has a pretty good track record of meeting the performance figures they publish). Sure, you can back off power in cruise with an O-540 and match the range figures for a 210hp engine, what's your trade-off when you do so? Speed. Personally, I'd rather have the horsepower reserve from a big engine and fly it more economically, say at 165 mph or so. Going fast isn't that big of a deal to me, a 100kt C-150 is still quicker than a car for most "long distance" trips. If I can get a hold of a 210-230hp engine that is significantly cheaper than the 260hp Lycs while weighing equal to or less than the "stock" engine, I will seriously consider it. Having to do some additional engineering and fabrication for a "non-stock" engine shouldn't be a killer either. As I point out you could end up with a lighter installation which has it's own benefits to the airplane's mission. However, I don't see how a TIO-360 installation would be cheaper than and in then end, more reliable than the straight O-540. Don't think that I'm endorsing automotive installations, it is RARE that a 260 hp car engine will weigh less than an O-540 once you consider reduction drive, radiator, etc. needed for such installations. Again, my main point, if you can live with a lower performing airplane, a smaller engine might be better for YOU if the resulting mission capabilities conform to the mission you wish to have. As a simple IFR family truckster, a 210 hp engine might not be too bad. JKH On 10/16/06, John W. Cox <HYPERLINK "mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com"johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote: A reduction of 260 to 210 is a 19.2% reduction in BHP. To maintain the same robust HP/Weight and not have an anemic performer, then the gross weight would have to be reduced to 2208 pounds. For simpletons like me that's 492 pounds of offloaded fuel or passengers cause there just is not that much difference in powerplant weight saved on the empty weight side of the equation. I guess that means a RV-9 with a four banger. Now where is my math supporting a more anemic engine. Oh, yeh ' four cylinders instead of six, Fuel Consumption. Oh, no ' I forgot about pulling the throttle back and running a more anemic power output. Thus saving the throttle for the quick go arounds and climbouts to avoid weather. Not all tradeoff are equal in logic. This reminds me of 17 friends who embraced the idea of putting =BD VW engines (yes two cylinders) in Nieuport replicas. I pointed out that with a 254 pound body weight the thing might not fly. He bailed on the project and watched the first prototype crash from lack of power. Conclusion, Van has done a pretty good job with the mission statement of the 4 place RV-10 with a six banger. Now with this logic is there anyone willing to consider a 9 cylinder, 360 hp radial? Kimball did it to satisfy those frustrated four cylinder owners with Pitts. JWC _____ From: HYPERLINK "mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com" \nowner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:HYPERLINK "mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com" \n owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:16 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines I wouldn't worry too much about using a lighter, less performing engine in the 210 - 230 HP range if you can live with a little loss of performance. Weight and balance is fairly easy to deal with, move the battery forward to the firewall and make provisions to add lead ballast. The firewall is typically pretty stout and should be able to handle the loading from the battery and a few pounds of lead. I would wait to add any ballast up front until after an empty aircraft weight and balance check is done. If the CG is outside limits, then add ballast as needed. Do check with Van's about ballast installation on the firewall if needed. You could end up with an aircraft with a lighter empty weight which translates into more useful load or more weight to add more avionic goodies. Everything in aircraft design and performance is a trade-off, give up some top-end performance and get a few more pounds for other things. Van's specs for 260 vs. 210 HP don't look too bad. At gross you lose about 10MPH of speed, but climb rate suffers more at about 300 fps loss. However, at 1,150 fps, it still climbs better than most spam-cans weighing 2,700 lbs.... JKH On 10/16/06, John Gonzalez <HYPERLINK "mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com" \n indigoonlatigo@msn.com> wrote: --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" < HYPERLINK "mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com" \nindigoonlatigo@msn.com> Well said John! Thank you! John G. 409 Do Not archive >From: "John W. Cox" <HYPERLINK "mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com" \njohnwcox@pacificnw.com > \nrv10-list@matronics.com >To: <HYPERLINK "mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com" \n rv10-list@matronics.com> >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines >Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0700 > >--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" < HYPERLINK "mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com" \njohnwcox@pacificnw.com> > >Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement "~20% >of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific >based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"? > >I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except N210RV. >That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental). No >science used in this conclusion. I'm baffled. > >John Cox >________________________________________ >From: HYPERLINK "mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com" \nowner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:HYPERLINK "mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com" \nowner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com ] On Behalf Of Robin Marks >Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM >To: HYPERLINK "mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com" \nrv10-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines > >John, > Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when >you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am all for >the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) but one >day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate choice and >regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should expect to >shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time limiting the >total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These >numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with alternate >engines) > When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an >alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any potential >savings. > A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v. >Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their >respective traits is the significant increase in build time between the >Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other choices >are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build >hours actually flying. > >Robin > HYPERLINK "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" \n HYPERLINK "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" \nhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" target="_blank">HYPERLINK "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" \n HYPERLINK "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" \nhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com/" target="_blank">HYPERLINK "http://forums.matronics.com/" \n HYPERLINK "http://forums.matronics.com/" \nhttp://forums.matronics.com href="http://wiki.matronics.com/" target="_blank">HYPERLINK "http://wiki.matronics.com/" \n HYPERLINK "http://wiki.matronics.com/" \nhttp://wiki.matronics.com ="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" http://www.matronics.com/contribution "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"http://www.matronics.com/Na vig ator?RV10-List "http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com "http://wiki.matronics.com"http://wiki.matronics.com "http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribut ion 10/14/2006 -- 10/14/2006


    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
    Time: 11:17:56 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: engines
    From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
    Heat and vibration are the two reasons that Cessna moved batteries from the firewall to locations aft. I take a contrarian view that the thickness of the material provided by VANS in the firewall is adequate for the weight of the appropriate battery. Marine and RV batteries are built for such vibration abuse and trade weight for durability. The big advantage is distance of the electric cable run. Some builders resort to welders wire which has vastly more strands, much smaller individually which makes it more flexible and it carries higher amperage. Oh, did I mention it is more expensive per foot. Maybe people are considering welding another bead onto the engine mount for the battery. That is a whole nother consideration. Trade offs/trade offs. John Cox Do not archive ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT@aol.com Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 9:59 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines Genrally putting the battery on the firewall will shorten the life of a battery plus if you do put the battery on the firewall, you should consider creating an easy access to it's location...having the battery close to the starter may not be a bad thing as there is less line lose in the distance from the firewall to the starter as opposed to a location in the rear of the aircraft. P


    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
    Time: 11:22:36 AM PST US
    From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: engines
    --> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net> btw Scott, B E A U T I F U L Plane1 Congrats on your 1st flight. Deems Davis # 406 Finishing http://deemsrv10.com/ > >


    Message 20


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:28:51 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: engines
    From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> I yield to your humor and logic. Resale, Insurability and Flying enjoyment are all qualitative and important factors. Reliability and Safety are two others for consideration. JC Do not Archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 10:51 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines --> RV10-List message posted by: "Robin Marks" <robin1@mrmoisture.com> John, That was the humor part of the email thus the bold HIGHLY. As there are almost no -10 sales recorded and basically no alternate engines let alone sales of alternate engine -10's. My fundamental point is that if one wanted to go the alternate engine route for fuel / power plant savings that they would ultimately experience the "expense" an alternate engine costs at resale. I looked at a beautiful 7A slider with a Subaru engine mounted up front. It was as nice (panel & build) as the $110K 7's that have sold except the seller was having a hard time getting $70K for it. IMHO most prospective RV buyers were not willing to take the risk of owning an alternate engine especially when they don't have the experience of an alternate engine installation or are the holders of the planes repairman's certificate. Happy flying, Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:23 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement "~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"? I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except N210RV. That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental). No science used in this conclusion. I'm baffled. John Cox


    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
    Time: 11:32:23 AM PST US
    From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
    Subject: Re: engines
    --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> Amen! One last comment on range since Jesse tripped my memory. Yesterday I had flown 350 or so miles. I was motoring along at 160kts or so, and noticed that the range on my chelton, adjusted for groundspeed and fuel flow, and saw that I still have well into the 700(nautical) mile range left on my fuel supply (standard 60 gal). The easiest way to get economy is to fly higher (to a point), and go LOP on the mixture. LOP is best done with an IO-540, not an O-540, in most cases. I figured on this 3000+ mile loop that I saved over $300 on fuel using LOP cruise. Do that a few times and you start paying for the engine rebuild faster too. You also stop less often so you get there quicker. Sorry that wasn't all that applicable to the 4-cyl engine discussion...just an anecdote. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive Jesse Saint wrote: > I like the discussion I am reading about this. I agree completely with > Tims last post. The IO-540 is perfect for most missions on both > economy at altitude and take-off/climb performance. The main problem > with the 540 is the upfront cost and the lack of power that might be > achievable at altitude with a turbo-normalized engine. Ideally, > normalizing a 540 to get more than 80hp at 18k (rough number estimates > based on our flying experience in N256H) would be great, maybe even > reaching a 200Kt cruise speed. That is what I would like to see > happen. The cost of a turbo is high, which would be the only reason for > possibly going with a smaller engine and a turbo. You really can > perform well at sea level with less power, and it doesnt make any sense > (IMHO) to cruise low because of the fuel burn, so the HP down low is > just used to get you up high. You can get as good or better range with > a 540 than with a 360 Continental because of the altitude performance > (probably, not knowing numbers because Vans doesnt publish 15k feet > performance on their planes). Again, having more power doesnt have to > be used if you dont want it (again, following Tims comments), but I > think I might be willing to sacrifice a little power down low to get > more up high. How much would it cost for a Superior 400 with a > turbonormalizer? Might we worth a try. > > > > To further this discussion, for those flying, what does the sweet speed > of economy seem to be in indicated airspeed? I think it is probably > about 120Kts or so. You cant get that at 18k normally aspirated, so > how many horsepower would it take to get that speed up high, and how > fast would that be in TAS at standard temps? Thats what I would like > to see. > > > > Jesse Saint > > I-TEC, Inc. > > jesse@itecusa.org <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org> > > www.itecusa.org <http://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 *James K Hovis > *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2006 1:13 PM > *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: engines > > > > I think you're slightly missing the point. If you have two identical > airframes sitting side-by-side and the only difference is one has a > 210hp engine and the other has a 260, you WILL see differences in > performance. To me, it's really a matter of the individual builder to > decide what type of mission he/she wishes to fly. According to Van's > data, you lose about 10 mph in flight speeds, lose 300 fps in climb rate > but gain about 125 miles in range (implying better fuel efficiency) (I'd > like to see these numbers verified, but Van's has a pretty good track > record of meeting the performance figures they publish). Sure, you can > back off power in cruise with an O-540 and match the range figures for a > 210hp engine, what's your trade-off when you do so? Speed. Personally, > I'd rather have the horsepower reserve from a big engine and fly it more > economically, say at 165 mph or so. Going fast isn't that big of a deal > to me, a 100kt C-150 is still quicker than a car for most "long > distance" trips. If I can get a hold of a 210-230hp engine that is > significantly cheaper than the 260hp Lycs while weighing equal to or > less than the "stock" engine, I will seriously consider it. Having to do > some additional engineering and fabrication for a "non-stock" engine > shouldn't be a killer either. As I point out you could end up with a > lighter installation which has it's own benefits to the airplane's > mission. However, I don't see how a TIO-360 installation would be > cheaper than and in then end, more reliable than the straight > O-540. Don't think that I'm endorsing automotive installations, it is > RARE that a 260 hp car engine will weigh less than an O-540 once you > consider reduction drive, radiator, etc. needed for such installations. > > > > Again, my main point, if you can live with a lower performing airplane, > a smaller engine might be better for YOU if the resulting mission > capabilities conform to the mission you wish to have. As a simple IFR > family truckster, a 210 hp engine might not be too bad. > > > > JKH > > > > On 10/16/06, *John W. Cox* <johnwcox@pacificnw.com > <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>> wrote: > > A reduction of 260 to 210 is a 19.2% reduction in BHP. To maintain the > same robust HP/Weight and not have an anemic performer, then the gross > weight would have to be reduced to 2208 pounds. > > > > For simpletons like me that's 492 pounds of offloaded fuel or passengers > cause there just is not that much difference in powerplant weight saved > on the empty weight side of the equation. I guess that means a RV-9 > with a four banger. Now where is my math supporting a more anemic > engine. Oh, yeh four cylinders instead of six, Fuel Consumption. Oh, > no I forgot about pulling the throttle back and running a more anemic > power output. Thus saving the throttle for the quick go arounds and > climbouts to avoid weather. > > > > Not all tradeoff are equal in logic. This reminds me of 17 friends who > embraced the idea of putting VW engines (yes two cylinders) in > Nieuport replicas. I pointed out that with a 254 pound body weight the > thing might not fly. He bailed on the project and watched the first > prototype crash from lack of power. Conclusion, Van has done a pretty > good job with the mission statement of the 4 place RV-10 with a six > banger. Now with this logic is there anyone willing to consider a 9 > cylinder, 360 hp radial? Kimball did it to satisfy those frustrated > four cylinder owners with Pitts. > > > > JWC > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com> [mailto: > owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>] *On Behalf Of *James K Hovis > *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2006 8:16 AM > *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com> > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: engines > > > > I wouldn't worry too much about using a lighter, less performing engine > in the 210 - 230 HP range if you can live with a little loss of > performance. Weight and balance is fairly easy to deal with, move the > battery forward to the firewall and make provisions to add lead ballast. > The firewall is typically pretty stout and should be able to handle the > loading from the battery and a few pounds of lead. I would wait to add > any ballast up front until after an empty aircraft weight and balance > check is done. If the CG is outside limits, then add ballast as > needed. Do check with Van's about ballast installation on the firewall > if needed. You could end up with an aircraft with a lighter empty > weight which translates into more useful load or more weight to add more > avionic goodies. > > > > Everything in aircraft design and performance is a trade-off, give up > some top-end performance and get a few more pounds for other things. > Van's specs for 260 vs. 210 HP don't look too bad. At gross you lose > about 10MPH of speed, but climb rate suffers more at about 300 fps loss. > However, at 1,150 fps, it still climbs better than most spam-cans > weighing 2,700 lbs.... > > > > > > JKH > > > > On 10/16/06, *John Gonzalez* < indigoonlatigo@msn.com > <mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com>> wrote: > > --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" < > indigoonlatigo@msn.com <mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com>> > > Well said John! > > Thank you! > > John G. 409 > Do Not archive > > > > > >>From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com > <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>> >>To: < rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>> >>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines >>Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0700 >> >>--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" < johnwcox@pacificnw.com > <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>> >> >>Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement "~20% >>of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific >>based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"? >> >>I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except N210RV. >>That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental). No >>science used in this conclusion. I'm baffled. >> >>John Cox >>________________________________________ >>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com> > >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>] On Behalf Of Robin Marks >>Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM >>To: rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com> >>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines >> >>John, >> Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when >>you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am all for >>the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) but one >>day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate choice and >>regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should expect to >>shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time limiting the >>total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects. (These >>numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with alternate >>engines) >> When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an >>alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any potential >>savings. >> A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v. >>Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their >>respective traits is the significant increase in build time between the >>Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other choices >>are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build >>hours actually flying. >> >>Robin >> > > > > > * * > > * * > > * * > > > > > > > > > > * <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>* > > *_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List_* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * * > > * * > > * * > > * * > > *href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" target="_blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>* > > *_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List_*** > > *href="http://forums.matronics.com/" target="_blank"> <http://forums.matronics.com/>* > > *_http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>_*** > > *href="http://wiki.matronics.com/" target="_blank"> <http://wiki.matronics.com/>* > > *_http://wiki.matronics.com <http://wiki.matronics.com/>_*** > > > *http://www.matronics.com/contribution* > > * * > > > > * * > > * * > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > * * > > -- Date: 10/14/2006 > > -- > 10/14/2006 > > * > > > *


    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
    Time: 12:00:48 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: engines
    From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com> OK, now you're beginning to get into an area of real interest to me. Tim, do you have GAMIjectors to allow you to use LOP operation? I recently got the engine for my RV-10, an O-540-A1D5 (from an Aztec). I'm considering converting it to an IO-540 with GAMIjectors just to be able to save some fuel, running it LOP. I've had at least one RV-10 owner tell me he wishes he had a carbureted O-540 rather than the IO-540 in his plane (he's had real problems with hot starts). The conversion will cost between $3,000 and $4,000. If I can really save $300 on a single long trip, it would certainly be worth it. Or should I just leave well enough alone and put that $3,000 into avionics and keep the carburetor? Opinions? (I figure this group has some) Jack Phillips # 40610 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:31 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> Amen! One last comment on range since Jesse tripped my memory. Yesterday I had flown 350 or so miles. I was motoring along at 160kts or so, and noticed that the range on my chelton, adjusted for groundspeed and fuel flow, and saw that I still have well into the 700(nautical) mile range left on my fuel supply (standard 60 gal). The easiest way to get economy is to fly higher (to a point), and go LOP on the mixture. LOP is best done with an IO-540, not an O-540, in most cases. I figured on this 3000+ mile loop that I saved over $300 on fuel using LOP cruise. Do that a few times and you start paying for the engine rebuild faster too. You also stop less often so you get there quicker. Sorry that wasn't all that applicable to the 4-cyl engine discussion...just an anecdote. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive _________________________________________________


    Message 23


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:45:13 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: engines
    From: "Tom Deutsch" <deutscht@rhwhotels.com>
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "Tom Deutsch" <deutscht@rhwhotels.com> Don't mean to be a know it all however I have a lot of experience running large Lycomings lean of peak.(and I also stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night) We have had good luck LOP if you fly high and/or keep the power at 65% or less. It is important to have good engine monitoring system allowing a good read on each cylinder egt and temp. Just keep all the temperatures well within Lycombing's recommendations ie cht's below 380* or so. Remember it is temperature not amount of fuel that will hurt your engine. The trade off for LOP is reduced power to 65% or less. Tom Deutsch, #40545 engine hung and wiring panel -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillips, Jack Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:58 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines --> RV10-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com> OK, now you're beginning to get into an area of real interest to me. Tim, do you have GAMIjectors to allow you to use LOP operation? I recently got the engine for my RV-10, an O-540-A1D5 (from an Aztec). I'm considering converting it to an IO-540 with GAMIjectors just to be able to save some fuel, running it LOP. I've had at least one RV-10 owner tell me he wishes he had a carbureted O-540 rather than the IO-540 in his plane (he's had real problems with hot starts). The conversion will cost between $3,000 and $4,000. If I can really save $300 on a single long trip, it would certainly be worth it. Or should I just leave well enough alone and put that $3,000 into avionics and keep the carburetor? Opinions? (I figure this group has some) Jack Phillips # 40610 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:31 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> Amen! One last comment on range since Jesse tripped my memory. Yesterday I had flown 350 or so miles. I was motoring along at 160kts or so, and noticed that the range on my chelton, adjusted for groundspeed and fuel flow, and saw that I still have well into the 700(nautical) mile range left on my fuel supply (standard 60 gal). The easiest way to get economy is to fly higher (to a point), and go LOP on the mixture. LOP is best done with an IO-540, not an O-540, in most cases. I figured on this 3000+ mile loop that I saved over $300 on fuel using LOP cruise. Do that a few times and you start paying for the engine rebuild faster too. You also stop less often so you get there quicker. Sorry that wasn't all that applicable to the 4-cyl engine discussion...just an anecdote. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive _________________________________________________


    Message 24


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:55:38 PM PST US
    From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
    Subject: Re: engines
    --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> Phillips, Jack wrote: > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com> > > OK, now you're beginning to get into an area of real interest to me. > Tim, do you have GAMIjectors to allow you to use LOP operation? > Nope, Aerosport just balances the standard ones with their engines....I believe GAMI does the same thing, but at a higher cost and Bart will swap injectors for free until you get the proper ones. Mine are close enough that it runs real well LOP, but far enough off that some day I'm going to perfect the 2 or 3 cylinders that are furthest from the center. > I recently got the engine for my RV-10, an O-540-A1D5 (from an Aztec). > I'm considering converting it to an IO-540 with GAMIjectors just to be > able to save some fuel, running it LOP. I've had at least one RV-10 > owner tell me he wishes he had a carbureted O-540 rather than the IO-540 > in his plane (he's had real problems with hot starts). The conversion > will cost between $3,000 and $4,000. If I can really save $300 on a > single long trip, it would certainly be worth it. Or should I just > leave well enough alone and put that $3,000 into avionics and keep the > carburetor? > Strange...and RV-10 owner with hot start problems? Which FI system? I have precision, and although you can screw it up and make it start hard, I've never had anything remotely close to causing me big headaches. At LOE it amazed some people at how easily it started cold, and hot starts aren't much worse if done right. When I flew to Oregon for Van's Homecoming, I figured I saved a little over $200 or $220 by running LOP. So in the last month or slightly more, that's $500 in savings for sure. Obviously if it were me I'd get an IO-540...but if you're really thinking mogas, then stick with the "oh". I myself am too squeamish to try Mogas even if I had an O-540, due to the concept of vapor lock....real or perceived. As far as saving money to put into avionics....if you want my possibly un-popular opinion....I'd build the plane EXACTLY the way you WANT it to be...regardless of the cost being $3000 or even $10000 higher. You don't want to spend $150,000+ on a plane and still go away thinking you "wish you woulda"... Tim > Opinions? (I figure this group has some) > > Jack Phillips > # 40610 > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:31 PM > To: rv10-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines > > --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> > > Amen! > > One last comment on range since Jesse tripped my memory. > Yesterday I had flown 350 or so miles. I was motoring > along at 160kts or so, and noticed that the range on my > chelton, adjusted for groundspeed and fuel flow, and saw > that I still have well into the 700(nautical) mile range > left on my fuel supply (standard 60 gal). The easiest > way to get economy is to fly higher (to a point), and > go LOP on the mixture. LOP is best done with an IO-540, > not an O-540, in most cases. I figured on this 3000+ > mile loop that I saved over $300 on fuel using LOP cruise. > Do that a few times and you start paying for the > engine rebuild faster too. You also stop less often > so you get there quicker. > > Sorry that wasn't all that applicable to the 4-cyl > engine discussion...just an anecdote. > > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying > do not archive > > > > _________________________________________________ > > > > > > >


    Message 25


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:13:36 PM PST US
    From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
    Subject: Kit Contents: was Vans Alternator
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org> Ron, I have a program called Panel Planner that will allow you to layout your panel and print it full-size (with marks of where to tape the corners of the papers together. If you can let me know what instruments you want, I can throw them on a "layout" and send them to you PDF so you can print them out, cut them out and tape them to your panel. Contact me offline if this would help you. 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 Ronald L Owen Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:45 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kit Contents: was Vans Alternator --> RV10-List message posted by: "Ronald L Owen" <flywithme@hughes.net> Dear Tim My name is Ron Owen and I stared my RV10 Project in mid July. Your web site is a welth of information and have enjoyed it very much, thanks. Hope you have time for a ?. I am working on the design of my panel and wonder if you know where to get actual size pictures of the different instruments. Thanks Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:54 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kit Contents: was Vans Alternator > --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> > > Some of them aren't all that recent, but should be a good start. > If there are builders willing to fax me their recent kit > contents lists as they get their new kit sections, I can post > updated ones that have any changes. 715-858-1681 and it will > do a fax-to-tif that I can easily post. Black out your personal > info before faxing if you want. Another good option is to > scan them and print into a .pdf if you have that capability. > > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying > do not archive > > > Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote: >> Ron, >> >> Tim Olson has contents for all of the kits posted on his web site at >> http://www.myrv10.com/tips/kits/index.html >> >> Bob #40105 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *McGANN, Ron >> (AUS BAeA) >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 12, 2006 5:46 PM >> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com >> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Vans Alternator >> >> The really disappointing thing about this is that I could not find the >> contents of the IO-540 FWF kit listed anywhere on Van's website. The >> Master relay, starter relay and Battery as listed on their web site as >> included, ARE NOT provided in the 540 kit nor could I find any options to >> change the alternator. Returning the alternator for a refund/replacement >> from Oz is a pain in the agates. >> >> Ron >> >> -----Original Message----- >> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]*On Behalf Of* RV >> Builder (Michael Sausen) >> *Sent:* Thursday, 12 October 2006 10:49 PM >> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com >> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Vans Alternator >> >> If anyone is ordering the FWF kit from Vans, I recommend you >> replace the standard 60amp alt with the deluxe model. The stock one >> is just an auto alternator where the deluxe one is a Plane Power >> alternator at a very attractive reduced price. From Vans it is >> $375 Plane Powers list price is $569. >> >> Michael Sausen >> >> -10 #352 Fuselage >> >> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Sam >> Marlow >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:59 PM >> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com >> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Vans Alternator >> >> I know of at least 2 that didn't make it to the first 100 hrs! >> >> McGANN, Ron wrote: >> >> All, >> >> Just unpacked my FWF kit. Was planning on the B&C alternator and >> external reg. Forgot to exclude the Vans ES 60 amp alt from the FWF kit. >> Backup will be the B&C 20 amp with ext reg. Any negative >> comments/experiences with the Vans unit?? >> >> cheers, >> >> Ron >> >> 187 - trimming windows. >> >> * * >> >> http://www.matronic - NEW MATRONICS also available via the >> Web ===================<NBSP;&NBSP;&NBSP;&NBSP; >> WIKI="=================</PRP;&NBSP;&NBSP; List - ** >> >> * * >> >> * * >> >> * * >> >> >> *href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.co m/Navigator?RV10-List* >> >> * * >> >> * * >> >> * * >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> * * >> >> * >> >> >> * > > > -- --


    Message 26


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:18:35 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: engines
    From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> GAMI runs an excel spreadsheet to determine volumetric efficiency per cylinder. Tuned induction and a balanced flow engines make the big difference. In the Beech F-33 (IO-520BB) we tested, there were only two differing sizes between six cylinders. EGT similarly at differing fuel flow rates were the test. It takes a recorder and a pilot. Invest about an hour and you will have your answers. The goal is not to have any single cylinder being fried at one time. We ran it at multiple altitude and flow rates. My guess is avionics will give the greatest return. However, that said, I am a big proponent of LOP for individuals with six CHT and six EGT probes working correctly and a pilot knowing when to richen the mixture. The GAMI injectors do a quantum leap in efficiency in the Continental systems. John Do not Archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillips, Jack Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:58 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines --> RV10-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com> OK, now you're beginning to get into an area of real interest to me. Tim, do you have GAMIjectors to allow you to use LOP operation? I recently got the engine for my RV-10, an O-540-A1D5 (from an Aztec). I'm considering converting it to an IO-540 with GAMIjectors just to be able to save some fuel, running it LOP. I've had at least one RV-10 owner tell me he wishes he had a carbureted O-540 rather than the IO-540 in his plane (he's had real problems with hot starts). The conversion will cost between $3,000 and $4,000. If I can really save $300 on a single long trip, it would certainly be worth it. Or should I just leave well enough alone and put that $3,000 into avionics and keep the carburetor? Opinions? (I figure this group has some) Jack Phillips # 40610 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:31 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> Amen! One last comment on range since Jesse tripped my memory. Yesterday I had flown 350 or so miles. I was motoring along at 160kts or so, and noticed that the range on my chelton, adjusted for groundspeed and fuel flow, and saw that I still have well into the 700(nautical) mile range left on my fuel supply (standard 60 gal). The easiest way to get economy is to fly higher (to a point), and go LOP on the mixture. LOP is best done with an IO-540, not an O-540, in most cases. I figured on this 3000+ mile loop that I saved over $300 on fuel using LOP cruise. Do that a few times and you start paying for the engine rebuild faster too. You also stop less often so you get there quicker. Sorry that wasn't all that applicable to the 4-cyl engine discussion...just an anecdote. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive _________________________________________________


    Message 27


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:30:52 PM PST US
    From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: engines
    --> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net> I was hot to trot on GAMI and asked my engine builer to add them, He cautioned me (politely of course) that the biggest benefit from the GAMI's is to Continental engines. Apparently the Lyc's are more efficient at burning the fuel as a stock engine. I'm putting in a AFP fuel system, and they have the same ability to 'tune' their injector nozzels as does the GAMI. Deems Davis # 406 Panel/Finishing http://deemsrv10.com/ John W. Cox wrote: >--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> > >GAMI runs an excel spreadsheet to determine volumetric efficiency per >cylinder. Tuned induction and a balanced flow engines make the big >difference. In the Beech F-33 (IO-520BB) we tested, there were only two >differing sizes between six cylinders. EGT similarly at differing fuel >flow rates were the test. It takes a recorder and a pilot. Invest >about an hour and you will have your answers. The goal is not to have >any single cylinder being fried at one time. We ran it at multiple >altitude and flow rates. > >My guess is avionics will give the greatest return. However, that said, >I am a big proponent of LOP for individuals with six CHT and six EGT >probes working correctly and a pilot knowing when to richen the mixture. >The GAMI injectors do a quantum leap in efficiency in the Continental >systems. > >John >Do not Archive > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillips, >Jack >Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:58 AM >To: rv10-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines > >--> RV10-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" ><Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com> > >OK, now you're beginning to get into an area of real interest to me. >Tim, do you have GAMIjectors to allow you to use LOP operation? > >I recently got the engine for my RV-10, an O-540-A1D5 (from an Aztec). >I'm considering converting it to an IO-540 with GAMIjectors just to be >able to save some fuel, running it LOP. I've had at least one RV-10 >owner tell me he wishes he had a carbureted O-540 rather than the IO-540 >in his plane (he's had real problems with hot starts). The conversion >will cost between $3,000 and $4,000. If I can really save $300 on a >single long trip, it would certainly be worth it. Or should I just >leave well enough alone and put that $3,000 into avionics and keep the >carburetor? > >Opinions? (I figure this group has some) > >Jack Phillips ># 40610 > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson >Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:31 PM >To: rv10-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines > >--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> > >Amen! > >One last comment on range since Jesse tripped my memory. >Yesterday I had flown 350 or so miles. I was motoring >along at 160kts or so, and noticed that the range on my >chelton, adjusted for groundspeed and fuel flow, and saw >that I still have well into the 700(nautical) mile range >left on my fuel supply (standard 60 gal). The easiest >way to get economy is to fly higher (to a point), and >go LOP on the mixture. LOP is best done with an IO-540, >not an O-540, in most cases. I figured on this 3000+ >mile loop that I saved over $300 on fuel using LOP cruise. >Do that a few times and you start paying for the >engine rebuild faster too. You also stop less often >so you get there quicker. > >Sorry that wasn't all that applicable to the 4-cyl >engine discussion...just an anecdote. > >Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying >do not archive > > >_________________________________________________ > > > >


    Message 28


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:27:20 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: engines
    From: "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt@ussynthetic.com>
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt@ussynthetic.com> I was also interested in the Gami injectors but Bart at Aerosport steered me away from them. If I remember right, he felt he could balance them as good or better without the complexity and price. He didn't feel they offered much. I would just check into it and ask around. Here is the truth with all of this, none of it really matters a lot. They all seem like big decisions when you are planning and building but when you are flying all you really care about is that the engine runs great, you have good communication, and the weather is good. I spent days and days (maybe months or a year) planning my panel, paint, wiring and interior. When you take off it is nice to have some of the features but really you are looking outside and having a great time. I do have some rules that I always follow when buying anything. Always buy something that is proven (Van's). ALWAYS get the most (approved) horsepower you can (260 HP). Always plan on 20-30% more than you thought even though your budget is down to the fifth significant figure. I live by these rules whether I buy a car, motorcycle, or a plane. I can't tell you how many people I have had to talk into buying the 1100cc bike over the 700cc. Scott Schmidt -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:30 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines --> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net> I was hot to trot on GAMI and asked my engine builer to add them, He cautioned me (politely of course) that the biggest benefit from the GAMI's is to Continental engines. Apparently the Lyc's are more efficient at burning the fuel as a stock engine. I'm putting in a AFP fuel system, and they have the same ability to 'tune' their injector nozzels as does the GAMI. Deems Davis # 406 Panel/Finishing http://deemsrv10.com/ John W. Cox wrote: >--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> > >GAMI runs an excel spreadsheet to determine volumetric efficiency per >cylinder. Tuned induction and a balanced flow engines make the big >difference. In the Beech F-33 (IO-520BB) we tested, there were only two >differing sizes between six cylinders. EGT similarly at differing fuel >flow rates were the test. It takes a recorder and a pilot. Invest >about an hour and you will have your answers. The goal is not to have >any single cylinder being fried at one time. We ran it at multiple >altitude and flow rates. > >My guess is avionics will give the greatest return. However, that said, >I am a big proponent of LOP for individuals with six CHT and six EGT >probes working correctly and a pilot knowing when to richen the mixture. >The GAMI injectors do a quantum leap in efficiency in the Continental >systems. > >John >Do not Archive > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillips, >Jack >Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:58 AM >To: rv10-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines > >--> RV10-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" ><Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com> > >OK, now you're beginning to get into an area of real interest to me. >Tim, do you have GAMIjectors to allow you to use LOP operation? > >I recently got the engine for my RV-10, an O-540-A1D5 (from an Aztec). >I'm considering converting it to an IO-540 with GAMIjectors just to be >able to save some fuel, running it LOP. I've had at least one RV-10 >owner tell me he wishes he had a carbureted O-540 rather than the IO-540 >in his plane (he's had real problems with hot starts). The conversion >will cost between $3,000 and $4,000. If I can really save $300 on a >single long trip, it would certainly be worth it. Or should I just >leave well enough alone and put that $3,000 into avionics and keep the >carburetor? > >Opinions? (I figure this group has some) > >Jack Phillips ># 40610 > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson >Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:31 PM >To: rv10-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines > >--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> > >Amen! > >One last comment on range since Jesse tripped my memory. >Yesterday I had flown 350 or so miles. I was motoring >along at 160kts or so, and noticed that the range on my >chelton, adjusted for groundspeed and fuel flow, and saw >that I still have well into the 700(nautical) mile range >left on my fuel supply (standard 60 gal). The easiest >way to get economy is to fly higher (to a point), and >go LOP on the mixture. LOP is best done with an IO-540, >not an O-540, in most cases. I figured on this 3000+ >mile loop that I saved over $300 on fuel using LOP cruise. >Do that a few times and you start paying for the >engine rebuild faster too. You also stop less often >so you get there quicker. > >Sorry that wasn't all that applicable to the 4-cyl >engine discussion...just an anecdote. > >Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying >do not archive > > >_________________________________________________ > > > >


    Message 29


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:18:19 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Weldment part
    From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman@earthlink.net>
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "johngoodman" <johngoodman@earthlink.net> According to you guys, I probably have a version #2. I think I'll definitely order WD-415-1 OR the aluminum milled one. It sounds like the aluminum milled one is beefier, right? After all, the original is steel. John [quote="fehdxl(at)gmail.com"] v1: no aft weld (single weld across the front of the nut) v2: one long weld across the front of the nut and a small tack weld on the aft side of the nut v3: full width welds on both sides of the nut (Also known as WD-415-1). [quote] -------- #40572 Empennage - starting Elevators! N711JG reserved Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68347#68347


    Message 30


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:57:23 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: engines
    From: "johngoodman" <johngoodman@earthlink.net>
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "johngoodman" <johngoodman@earthlink.net> Wow! I didn't mean to help start a firestorm, but the discussion has been very enlightening. Obviously, there are lots of trade-offs in the engine department. Frankly, I would be very happy with an IO-540, and will probably get one. The O-540 is a possiblility (I've noticed the hot start issue when I tag along with my brother and his RV formation buddies). My real concern is the availability of 100LL. It is my understanding that there are only two refineries left in the world that still produce it. What if 100LL becomes as hard to find as whale oil? Also, what are the issues with fuel tanks that were designed for - and only contain - 100LL? Obviously, there would be a run for autogas, and I assume that a way would be found to adapt an IO-540 to autogas. But autogas is a chemical soup that the industry and states feel free to alter on a whim. The real answer for our generation of flyers is diesel/jetA. That's all I'm looking for - a diesel 540 (g). John -------- #40572 Empennage - starting Elevators! N711JG reserved Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68359#68359


    Message 31


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:16:17 PM PST US
    From: GRANSCOTT@aol.com
    Subject: Re: engines
    In a message dated 10/16/2006 9:59:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, johngoodman@earthlink.net writes: The O-540 is a possiblility (I've noticed the hot start issue when I tag along with my brother and his RV formation buddies). I fly behind an O-540 for a number of years and in flying behind the IO-540 also...the IO has occasionally a "re-start" problem if you try to start it in the cold start mode. The O 540 is almost bullet proof in starting. Lead additive...only one company makes the lead active for leaded gas and their plant is located in the UK. Most O-540 can use regular gas (leaded or unleaded) but if you think you're going to get an alcohol blended gas then you've got to make sure the pump's, lines etc will not be plasticized by the alcohol. Your fuel burn will be high with the alcohol as it's not delivering as many BTU's as pure gas. Diesel...not too many selections for aviation engines out there in large HP engines. Delta Hawk said they would create a larger engine after the successful introduction of the 4 cyclinder engine. I understand that they have finally begun delivering a few engines...my buddy Pete received his a week ago. But they are really 2-3 years behind where they said there were going to be...but at least they are in some sort of production. Guess you can see if SMA or Theilert can produce an engine in your time frame. P


    Message 32


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:21:00 PM PST US
    From: jdalton77@comcast.net
    Subject: Elevator skin repair suggestions
    While removing the AN-3 bolts for the umteenth time that connect the elevators to the HS I slipped with the wrench and made a small tear in the skin of the elevator. It's about 1" long. I would like to repair it, rather than replace the entire skin. I thought I'd clean it up at epoxy a small square of aluminum to the underside of the tear and fill in the rest with filler. It's is not visible when the the elevator is in the trailing position. Thoughts? Jeff <html><body> <DIV>While removing the AN-3 bolts for the umteenth time that connect the elevators to the HS I slipped with the wrench and made a small tear in the skin of the elevator.&nbsp; It's about 1" long.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>I would like to repair it, rather than replace the entire skin.&nbsp; I thought I'd clean it up at epoxy a small square of aluminum to the underside of the tear and fill in the rest with filler.&nbsp; It's is not visible when the the elevator is in the trailing position.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Thoughts?</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Jeff&nbsp;</DIV> <pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier"> </b></font></pre></body></html>


    Message 33


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:23:28 PM PST US
    From: "John Dunne" <acs@acspropeller.com.au>
    Subject: Re: engines
    --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Dunne" <acs@acspropeller.com.au> Good points Scott and congratulations on such a fine turn out of your aircraft. John 40315 Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt Sent: Tuesday, 17 October 2006 7:25 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines --> RV10-List message posted by: "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt@ussynthetic.com> I was also interested in the Gami injectors but Bart at Aerosport steered me away from them. If I remember right, he felt he could balance them as good or better without the complexity and price. He didn't feel they offered much. I would just check into it and ask around. Here is the truth with all of this, none of it really matters a lot. They all seem like big decisions when you are planning and building but when you are flying all you really care about is that the engine runs great, you have good communication, and the weather is good. I spent days and days (maybe months or a year) planning my panel, paint, wiring and interior. When you take off it is nice to have some of the features but really you are looking outside and having a great time. I do have some rules that I always follow when buying anything. Always buy something that is proven (Van's). ALWAYS get the most (approved) horsepower you can (260 HP). Always plan on 20-30% more than you thought even though your budget is down to the fifth significant figure. I live by these rules whether I buy a car, motorcycle, or a plane. I can't tell you how many people I have had to talk into buying the 1100cc bike over the 700cc. Scott Schmidt -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:30 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines --> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net> I was hot to trot on GAMI and asked my engine builer to add them, He cautioned me (politely of course) that the biggest benefit from the GAMI's is to Continental engines. Apparently the Lyc's are more efficient at burning the fuel as a stock engine. I'm putting in a AFP fuel system, and they have the same ability to 'tune' their injector nozzels as does the GAMI. Deems Davis # 406 Panel/Finishing http://deemsrv10.com/ John W. Cox wrote: >--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> > >GAMI runs an excel spreadsheet to determine volumetric efficiency per >cylinder. Tuned induction and a balanced flow engines make the big >difference. In the Beech F-33 (IO-520BB) we tested, there were only two >differing sizes between six cylinders. EGT similarly at differing fuel >flow rates were the test. It takes a recorder and a pilot. Invest >about an hour and you will have your answers. The goal is not to have >any single cylinder being fried at one time. We ran it at multiple >altitude and flow rates. > >My guess is avionics will give the greatest return. However, that said, >I am a big proponent of LOP for individuals with six CHT and six EGT >probes working correctly and a pilot knowing when to richen the mixture. >The GAMI injectors do a quantum leap in efficiency in the Continental >systems. > >John >Do not Archive > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillips, >Jack >Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:58 AM >To: rv10-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines > >--> RV10-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" ><Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com> > >OK, now you're beginning to get into an area of real interest to me. >Tim, do you have GAMIjectors to allow you to use LOP operation? > >I recently got the engine for my RV-10, an O-540-A1D5 (from an Aztec). >I'm considering converting it to an IO-540 with GAMIjectors just to be >able to save some fuel, running it LOP. I've had at least one RV-10 >owner tell me he wishes he had a carbureted O-540 rather than the IO-540 >in his plane (he's had real problems with hot starts). The conversion >will cost between $3,000 and $4,000. If I can really save $300 on a >single long trip, it would certainly be worth it. Or should I just >leave well enough alone and put that $3,000 into avionics and keep the >carburetor? > >Opinions? (I figure this group has some) > >Jack Phillips ># 40610 > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson >Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:31 PM >To: rv10-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines > >--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> > >Amen! > >One last comment on range since Jesse tripped my memory. >Yesterday I had flown 350 or so miles. I was motoring >along at 160kts or so, and noticed that the range on my >chelton, adjusted for groundspeed and fuel flow, and saw >that I still have well into the 700(nautical) mile range >left on my fuel supply (standard 60 gal). The easiest >way to get economy is to fly higher (to a point), and >go LOP on the mixture. LOP is best done with an IO-540, >not an O-540, in most cases. I figured on this 3000+ >mile loop that I saved over $300 on fuel using LOP cruise. >Do that a few times and you start paying for the >engine rebuild faster too. You also stop less often >so you get there quicker. > >Sorry that wasn't all that applicable to the 4-cyl >engine discussion...just an anecdote. > >Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying >do not archive > > >_________________________________________________ > >


    Message 34


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:22:52 PM PST US
    From: "Jim Beyer" <fehdxl@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Elevator skin repair suggestions
    Jeff, I would make the tear a square hole, then fabricate a small piece to exactly fill the hole, as well as a larger piece which would rivet to the existing skin as well as create the lip for the smaller piece to rivet to. Think of those repair kits used to fix a large hole in drywall. AC 43-13 has all kinds of good information about this regarding edge spacing, minimum number of rivets per square inch, etc, etc. Of course, if the tear is very close to the edge, on a curved part of the HS, or near a rib, the solutions become more complex. Hope this helps. -Jim On 10/16/06, jdalton77@comcast.net <jdalton77@comcast.net> wrote: > > While removing the AN-3 bolts for the umteenth time that connect the > elevators to the HS I slipped with the wrench and made a small tear in the > skin of the elevator. It's about 1" long. > > I would like to repair it, rather than replace the entire skin. I thought > I'd clean it up at epoxy a small square of aluminum to the underside of the > tear and fill in the rest with filler. It's is not visible when the the > elevator is in the trailing position. > > Thoughts? > > Jeff > > * > > * > > -- o=\o


    Message 35


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:55:21 PM PST US
    Subject: Top Mount Antennas
    From: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
    G'day all, I'm about to take a drill to the foward tailcone skin to install an AV-10 comms antenna (comm 2). I also have an AV-17 on the belly. The AV-10 will be located baout 8" aft of the turtledeck/tailcone join. Any opinions on radiation penetration through the fiberglass lid and possible RFI induced in the panel? Would a foil ground plane beneath the headliner be useful? cheers, Ron #187




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   rv10-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV10-List.htm
  • Full Archive Search Engine
  •   http://www.matronics.com/search
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv10-list
  • Browse RV10-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv10-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contributions

    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! --