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 |
|
| Subject: | E-Drill Bushing location |
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 |
|
| 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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
| Subject: | E-Drill Bushing location |
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 |
|
| Subject: | 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
[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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weldment part |
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weldment part |
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
| 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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
| 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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weldment part |
--> 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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
| 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. It's about 1" long.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thoughts?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Jeff </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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
| 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 |
|
| Subject: | Top Mount Antennas |
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
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! --
|