Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:56 AM - Re: Top Mount Antennas (Rob Kermanj)
2. 04:08 AM - FS: RV10 Tail Kit (Larry R)
3. 05:36 AM - Re: Kit Contents: was Vans AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans Alternator (Murray Randall)
4. 06:12 AM - Re: Re: engines (jdalton77)
5. 06:22 AM - Re: Elevator skin repair suggestions (jdalton77)
6. 06:26 AM - Re: Kit Contents: was Vans AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans Alternator (Perry Casson)
7. 06:26 AM - Re: Kit Contents: was Vans AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans Alternator (David McNeill)
8. 06:32 AM - Re: Top Mount Antennas (Jesse Saint)
9. 06:44 AM - Re: Re: engines (Jesse Saint)
10. 06:50 AM - Re: Top Mount Antennas (Phillips, Jack)
11. 07:01 AM - Re: Elevator skin repair suggestions (Kelly McMullen)
12. 07:09 AM - Re: Elevator skin repair suggestions (jdalton77)
13. 07:31 AM - Re: Elevator skin repair suggestions (Phillips, Jack)
14. 07:40 AM - Re: Re: engines (Tim Olson)
15. 08:04 AM - Re: Re: Weldment part (Vern W. Smith)
16. 08:05 AM - Re: Re: engines (BPA)
17. 08:57 AM - Re: Re: engines (David McNeill)
18. 09:02 AM - Re: Elevator skin repair suggestions (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
19. 09:16 AM - Re: Re: engines (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
20. 09:46 AM - First Flight (Scott Schmidt)
21. 10:15 AM - Re: Re: engines (Scott Schmidt)
22. 10:26 AM - Re: First Flight (Tim Olson)
23. 10:27 AM - Re: FW: [LML] Lancair driver make the AVWEB news (Scott Schmidt)
24. 10:33 AM - Re: Re: engines (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
25. 10:37 AM - Re: Re: engines (Steve Mills)
26. 10:39 AM - Re: Top Mount Antennas (ammended) (John Gonzalez)
27. 10:41 AM - Re: Re: engines (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
28. 10:42 AM - Re: First Flight (Rob Kermanj)
29. 10:58 AM - Re: First Flight (Jeff Carpenter)
30. 11:46 AM - Re: Re: engines (BPA)
31. 11:57 AM - Re: Re: engines (Vern W. Smith)
32. 11:58 AM - Re: First Flight (John Gonzalez)
33. 12:09 PM - Re: Re: engines (jdalton77)
34. 12:16 PM - Re: Re: engines (Kelly McMullen)
35. 12:26 PM - First flight write up. (Scott Schmidt)
36. 12:35 PM - Re: Re: engines (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
37. 12:36 PM - Re: Re: engines (RAS)
38. 12:36 PM - Re: First Flight (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
39. 12:39 PM - Re: Re: engines (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
40. 12:40 PM - Re: Re: engines (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
41. 12:48 PM - Re: Re: engines (Deems Davis)
42. 01:14 PM - Re: First Flight (Scott Schmidt)
43. 01:24 PM - Re: Re: engines (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
44. 01:32 PM - Re: Re: engines (John Gonzalez)
45. 02:19 PM - Re: Re: engines (BPA)
46. 02:26 PM - Re: Re: engines (Kelly McMullen)
47. 02:31 PM - Re: First Flight (kilopapa@antelecom.net)
48. 02:39 PM - Re: Re: engines (BPA)
49. 03:54 PM - Re: Re: engines (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
50. 04:59 PM - Re: Re: engines (Tim Olson)
51. 06:23 PM - Re: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining (johngoodman)
52. 06:32 PM - Re: Re: engines (Kelly McMullen)
53. 06:58 PM - Re: Re: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining (Larry Rosen)
54. 07:20 PM - Re: Re: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining (Tim Olson)
55. 07:29 PM - Latest Trip update for LOE + head to head, MT vs Hartzell (Tim Olson)
56. 07:45 PM - Stainless steel heat selector boxes (Chris Johnston)
57. 10:50 PM - Re: First Flight (Scott Schmidt)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Top Mount Antennas |
My concern would be the lack of ground plane. You need a diameter
about twice the length of the antenna for ground plane (ideally). If
you provide a foil below in the cabin, be @#% sure that you have a
good ground from the antenna base to the foil. Better yet, consider
attaching the antenna to the tail cone. Of course you can't go wrong
by installing both antennas below the belly.
Antenna location and RFI is part art, part science. Hard to predict
what it will do to your panel. Mimic antenna locations you find on
production planes parked on the ramp.
do not archive
Rob
On Oct 17, 2006, at 2:53 AM, McGANN, Ron wrote:
> 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
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ============================================================ _-
> ============================================================ _-
> contribution_-
> ===========================================================
>
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: | FS: RV10 Tail Kit |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Larry R <_lr_@yahoo.com>
For a bunch of reasons, I'm putting my RV-10 tail kit (#400022) up for
sale. VS, rudder complete, HS in progress. Builder's log to date
available upon request. This will need to be picked up at my home about
30 miles east of NYC; I am unable to ship. Price: Best offer; start
your project frugally!
Larry Rachman
Centerport, NY
__________________________________________________
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kit Contents: was Vans AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans |
AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans Alternator
Does anyone have a less expensive alternative to "Panel Planner"....$285
and I'm sure its worth it but for a one time application its hard to
justify Murray Randall
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 |
|
Jesse,
I agree with everything you said . . . except one little thing :)
The IO-540 is "almost" the perfect choice. Like any other aircraft
engine - it's way too expensive for the average builder. It's does seem
to be the perfect technical spec - just too costly to purchase and
maintain (overhaul is also obscene).
The rationale on aircraft parts in general, including engines, being so
expensive is the liability and insurance that's required for certified
aircraft. OK, I'll buy at least some of that. But Lycoming has ignored
that concept altogether. While we can buy an airframe for a fraction of
the cost of a certified airframe, we are still "stuck" with a
"certified" price on an engine.
It couldn't cost so much to build these could it?
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:50 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
I like the discussion I am reading about this. I agree completely
with Tim's 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't 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's doesn't publish 15k feet
performance on their planes). Again, having more power doesn't have to
be used if you don't want it (again, following Tim's 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't 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's what
I would like to see.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@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
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> 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: 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 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
>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhref="htt
p://forums.matronics.com/"
target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.comhref="http://wiki.matronic
s.com/" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com="return
top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-- Date: 10/14/2006
--
10/14/2006
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: Elevator skin repair suggestions |
Thanks Jim,
Good advice. The tear is both by the edge and on a curve, but I think I
can make it work. Thanks.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Beyer
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Kit Contents: was Vans AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans |
AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans Alternator
I played with http://www.epanelbuilder.com/ for a while but once I had decided on equipment I just
print 1:1 scale photos of my instruments and laid them out on the actual panel
until I was happy.
The rest of the job was just low tech measuring, marking, cutting and drilling.
Perry Casson
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: Kit Contents: was Vans AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans |
AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans Alternator
www.epanelbuilder.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Murray Randall
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kit Contents: was Vans AlternatorKit Contents:
was Vans AlternatorKit Contents: was Vans Alternator
Does anyone have a less expensive alternative to "Panel
Planner"....$285 and I'm sure its worth it but for a one time
application its hard to justify Murray Randall
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Top Mount Antennas |
Mimic antenna locations you find on production planes parked on the ramp?
When I look down the ramp, my plane is the only one with no antenna clutter
on the top. Most of them have 2-6 antennas somewhere on the top and I have
none. Beyond that, antenna placement on the belly on the ramp is a good
place to start. I personally like the clean top look.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
HYPERLINK "mailto:jesse@itecusa.org"jesse@itecusa.org
HYPERLINK "http://www.itecusa.org"www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Top Mount Antennas
My concern would be the lack of ground plane. You need a diameter about
twice the length of the antenna for ground plane (ideally). If you provide
a foil below in the cabin, be @#% sure that you have a good ground from the
antenna base to the foil. Better yet, consider attaching the antenna to the
tail cone. Of course you can't go wrong by installing both antennas below
the belly.
Antenna location and RFI is part art, part science. Hard to predict what it
will do to your panel. Mimic antenna locations you find on production
planes parked on the ramp.
do not archive
Rob
On Oct 17, 2006, at 2:53 AM, McGANN, Ron wrote:
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
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - class="Apple-converted-space">
--> http://forums.matronics.com - List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin. class="Apple-converted-space"> -->
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"http://www.matronics.com/Navig
ator?RV10-List
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
--
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 |
|
I agree that we are stuck paying most of the certified price for an
experimental version of the IO-540, and that stinks. I also know that
people have tried making aircraft engines that will replace the
lycosaurs
and have failed. A perfect example is N450HP (Lancair 4P with aluminum
block V8 in it) sitting in my shop here after 10+ years of building,
waiting
for engine, waiting for backup computer, waiting for better gearbox. It
still hasn=92t flown and the guys that own it have so much stinking
money
invested in this stinking engine that they can=92t afford to take it off
and
put on a certified engine so they can fly it. I know this isn=92t
always the
case, but there are Continental and Lycoming engine all over the ramp
that
have a lot of flying hours on them, and just about every small plane A&P
knows more about them then about the precious few other engines out
there.
I like what Superior is doing with their experimental engines, although
they
are not innovating much, but rather copying designs with small
modifications. Again, they are improving a little bit on something very
proven. I wish we could buy a 260HP experimental engine with a very
proven
track record for $20,000, but I don=92t see that happening. I know this
is
going to get a little heat from the Subaru fans, which is fine, but
there
are roughly 50 RV-10=92s flying with IO-540=92s and =93not nearly as
many=94 with
anything else, which is where this whole discussion started. Get a row
of
Subie-10=92s at Oshkosh 2007 and I promise you there will be a lot more
people
getting on that train.
Now, how to we convince Lycoming that we shouldn=92t be paying as much
as we
are for their experimental engines because they don=92t have the
certified
data tag. Oops, that crazy supply and demand curve is coming back
again. I
guess the flat answer is, they charge that much because they can and we
still buy them. We=92re shooting ourselves in the foot (feet?), but are
really enjoying the flying!
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 jdalton77
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Jesse,
I agree with everything you said . . . except one little thing :)
The IO-540 is "almost" the perfect choice. Like any other aircraft
engine -
it's way too expensive for the average builder. It's does seem to be
the
perfect technical spec - just too costly to purchase and maintain
(overhaul
is also obscene).
The rationale on aircraft parts in general, including engines, being so
expensive is the liability and insurance that's required for certified
aircraft. OK, I'll buy at least some of that. But Lycoming has ignored
that concept altogether. While we can buy an airframe for a fraction of
the
cost of a certified airframe, we are still "stuck" with a "certified"
price
on an engine.
It couldn't cost so much to build these could it?
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: HYPERLINK "mailto:jesse@itecusa.org"Jesse Saint
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:50 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
I like the discussion I am reading about this. I agree completely with
Tim=92s last post. The IO-540 is perfect for most missions on both
economy at
altitude and take-off/climb performance. The main problem with the 540
is
the upfront cost and the lack of power that might be achievable at
altitude
with a turbo-normalized engine. Ideally, normalizing a 540 to get more
than
80hp at 18k (rough number estimates based on our flying experience in
N256H)
would be great, maybe even reaching a 200Kt cruise speed. That is what
I
would like to see happen. The cost of a turbo is high, which would be
the
only reason for possibly going with a smaller engine and a turbo. You
really can perform well at sea level with less power, and it doesn=92t
make
any sense (IMHO) to cruise low because of the fuel burn, so the HP down
low
is just used to get you up high. You can get as good or better range
with a
540 than with a 360 Continental because of the altitude performance
(probably, not knowing numbers because Van=92s doesn=92t publish 15k
feet
performance on their planes). Again, having more power doesn=92t have
to be
used if you don=92t want it (again, following Tim=92s comments), but I
think I
might be willing to sacrifice a little power down low to get more up
high.
How much would it cost for a Superior 400 with a turbonormalizer? Might
we
worth a try.
To further this discussion, for those flying, what does the sweet speed
of
economy seem to be in indicated airspeed? I think it is probably about
120Kts or so. You can=92t get that at 18k normally aspirated, so how
many
horsepower would it take to get that speed up high, and how fast would
that
be in TAS at standard temps? That=92s what I would like to see.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
HYPERLINK "mailto:jesse@itecusa.org"jesse@itecusa.org
HYPERLINK "http://www.itecusa.org"www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
I think you're slightly missing the point. If you have two identical
airframes sitting side-by-side and the only difference is one has a
210hp
engine and the other has a 260, you WILL see differences in performance.
To
me, it's really a matter of the individual builder to decide what type
of
mission he/she wishes to fly. According to Van's data, you lose about 10
mph
in flight speeds, lose 300 fps in climb rate but gain about 125 miles in
range (implying better fuel efficiency) (I'd like to see these numbers
verified, but Van's has a pretty good track record of meeting the
performance figures they publish). Sure, you can back off power in
cruise
with an O-540 and match the range figures for a 210hp engine, what's
your
trade-off when you do so? Speed. Personally, I'd rather have the
horsepower
reserve from a big engine and fly it more economically, say at 165 mph
or
so. Going fast isn't that big of a deal to me, a 100kt C-150 is still
quicker than a car for most "long distance" trips. If I can get a hold
of a
210-230hp engine that is significantly cheaper than the 260hp Lycs while
weighing equal to or less than the "stock" engine, I will seriously
consider
it. Having to do some additional engineering and fabrication for a
"non-stock" engine shouldn't be a killer either. As I point out you
could
end up with a lighter installation which has it's own benefits to the
airplane's mission. However, I don't see how a TIO-360 installation
would be
cheaper than and in then end, more reliable than the straight O-540.
Don't
think that I'm endorsing automotive installations, it is RARE that a 260
hp
car engine will weigh less than an O-540 once you consider reduction
drive,
radiator, etc. needed for such installations.
Again, my main point, if you can live with a lower performing airplane,
a
smaller engine might be better for YOU if the resulting mission
capabilities
conform to the mission you wish to have. As a simple IFR family
truckster, a
210 hp engine might not be too bad.
JKH
On 10/16/06, John W. Cox <HYPERLINK
"mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com"johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
A reduction of 260 to 210 is a 19.2% reduction in BHP. To maintain the
same
robust HP/Weight and not have an anemic performer, then the gross weight
would have to be reduced to 2208 pounds.
For simpletons like me that's 492 pounds of offloaded fuel or passengers
cause there just is not that much difference in powerplant weight saved
on
the empty weight side of the equation. I guess that means a RV-9 with a
four banger. Now where is my math supporting a more anemic engine. Oh,
yeh
' four cylinders instead of six, Fuel Consumption. Oh, no ' I
forgot about
pulling the throttle back and running a more anemic power output. Thus
saving the throttle for the quick go arounds and climbouts to avoid
weather.
Not all tradeoff are equal in logic. This reminds me of 17 friends who
embraced the idea of putting =BD VW engines (yes two cylinders) in
Nieuport
replicas. I pointed out that with a 254 pound body weight the thing
might
not fly. He bailed on the project and watched the first prototype crash
from lack of power. Conclusion, Van has done a pretty good job with the
mission statement of the 4 place RV-10 with a six banger. Now with this
logic is there anyone willing to consider a 9 cylinder, 360 hp radial?
Kimball did it to satisfy those frustrated four cylinder owners with
Pitts.
JWC
_____
From: HYPERLINK "mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com"
\nowner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:HYPERLINK
"mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com" \n
owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
I wouldn't worry too much about using a lighter, less performing engine
in
the 210 - 230 HP range if you can live with a little loss of
performance.
Weight and balance is fairly easy to deal with, move the battery forward
to
the firewall and make provisions to add lead ballast. The firewall is
typically pretty stout and should be able to handle the loading from the
battery and a few pounds of lead. I would wait to add any ballast up
front
until after an empty aircraft weight and balance check is done. If the
CG is
outside limits, then add ballast as needed. Do check with Van's about
ballast installation on the firewall if needed. You could end up with an
aircraft with a lighter empty weight which translates into more useful
load
or more weight to add more avionic goodies.
Everything in aircraft design and performance is a trade-off, give up
some
top-end performance and get a few more pounds for other things. Van's
specs
for 260 vs. 210 HP don't look too bad. At gross you lose about 10MPH of
speed, but climb rate suffers more at about 300 fps loss. However, at
1,150
fps, it still climbs better than most spam-cans weighing 2,700 lbs....
JKH
On 10/16/06, John Gonzalez <HYPERLINK "mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com" \n
indigoonlatigo@msn.com> wrote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" < HYPERLINK
"mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com" \nindigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Well said John!
Thank you!
John G. 409
Do Not archive
>From: "John W. Cox" <HYPERLINK "mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com"
\njohnwcox@pacificnw.com >
\nrv10-list@matronics.com
>To: <HYPERLINK "mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com" \n
rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
>Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:23:11 -0700
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" < HYPERLINK
"mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com" \njohnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>
>Robin, this is out of context but where did you pull your statement
"~20%
>of the original pool of prospects. (These numbers are HIGHLY scientific
>based on all recent -10 sales with alternate engines)"?
>
>I am not aware of one single flying alternate engine RV-10 except
N210RV.
>That is only an alternate to the Lycoming (being a Continental). No
>science used in this conclusion. I'm baffled.
>
>John Cox
>________________________________________
>From: HYPERLINK "mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com"
\nowner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:HYPERLINK "mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com"
\nowner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com ] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
>Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:40 PM
>To: HYPERLINK "mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com"
\nrv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
>John,
> Some day you will want or need to sell your -10. That will be when
>you find out how expensive "alternate" engines really cost. I am all
for
>the concept of different engine choices (and applaud all who try) but
one
>day you will have to convince a buyer to purchase your alternate choice
and
>regardless of how nice you built the rest of the plane you should
expect to
>shave $20-30K off a comparable plane while at the same time limiting
the
>total number of buyers to ~20% of the original pool of prospects.
(These
>numbers are HIGHLY scientific based on all recent -10 sales with
alternate
>engines)
> When considering the additional time & expense it may take to get an
>alternate engine actually flying and that will far outweigh any
potential
>savings.
> A note not covered on the recent discussion "RV7a v. Legacy FG v.
>Glassair SII FT" not mentioned when comparing each model and their
>respective traits is the significant increase in build time between the
>Vans kits and the other choices. Everyone concedes that the other
choices
>are beautiful planes but I would prefer spending the extra 2000+ build
>hours actually flying.
>
>Robin
>
HYPERLINK "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" \n
HYPERLINK "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"
\nhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"
target="_blank">HYPERLINK
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" \n
HYPERLINK "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"
\nhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com/" target="_blank">HYPERLINK
"http://forums.matronics.com/" \n
HYPERLINK "http://forums.matronics.com/" \nhttp://forums.matronics.com
href="http://wiki.matronics.com/" target="_blank">HYPERLINK
"http://wiki.matronics.com/" \n
HYPERLINK "http://wiki.matronics.com/" \nhttp://wiki.matronics.com
="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank">
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-- Date: 10/14/2006
--
10/14/2006
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com
/Navigator?RV10-List
"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
10/16/2006
--
10/16/2006
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Top Mount Antennas |
In the "For What it's Worth" departement, I just finished the condition
inspection of my RV-4. The previous owner had a Loran installed, which
didn't come with the airplane but its antenna (and associated cabling)
was still installed. I removed the antenna and cable during the
condition inspection and found that I picked up nearly 5 mph in cruise
speed. This antenna had a teardrop shaped base, with a whip that
extended swept back about 45 degrees to a height of about 12" above the
turtledeck of the airplane (behind the canopy), and then continued aft
about 18" parallel to the turtledeck. Total weight of the antenna and
cable was about 3 lbs.
Based on this experience, I will do everything possible to keep my
antennas buried, or will use blade type antennas if projecting out into
the slipstream. A blade has a much lower drag coefficient than a round
rod.
Jack Phillips
# 40610
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:31 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Top Mount Antennas
Mimic antenna locations you find on production planes parked on the
ramp? When I look down the ramp, my plane is the only one with no
antenna clutter on the top. Most of them have 2-6 antennas somewhere on
the top and I have none. Beyond that, antenna placement on the belly on
the ramp is a good place to start. I personally like the clean top
look.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@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 Rob Kermanj
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Top Mount Antennas
My concern would be the lack of ground plane. You need a diameter about
twice the length of the antenna for ground plane (ideally). If you
provide a foil below in the cabin, be @#% sure that you have a good
ground from the antenna base to the foil. Better yet, consider
attaching the antenna to the tail cone. Of course you can't go wrong by
installing both antennas below the belly.
Antenna location and RFI is part art, part science. Hard to predict
what it will do to your panel. Mimic antenna locations you find on
production planes parked on the ramp.
do not archive
Rob
On Oct 17, 2006, at 2:53 AM, McGANN, Ron wrote:
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
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
class="Apple-converted-space"> --> http://forums.matronics.com
- List Contribution Web Site - -Matt Dralle,
List Admin. class="Apple-converted-space"> -->
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
--
10/16/2006
--
10/16/2006
_________________________________________________
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 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: Elevator skin repair suggestions |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
Give serious thought to reskinning that area. Elevator is a balanced
control surface. So either you will have a small difference in counter
weight on that side if you add metal for a patch, or not. The skin
isn't that expensive, it is mostly the time involved. I tend to think
you will be happier in the long run with fresh skin, but that is your
decision.
On 10/17/06, jdalton77 <jdalton77@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Jim,
>
> Good advice. The tear is both by the edge and on a curve, but I think I can
> make it work. Thanks.
>
> Jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Beyer
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:20 AM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Elevator skin repair suggestions |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "jdalton77" <jdalton77@comcast.net>
Do you think a 2" square piece of .32 aluminum will affect elevator balance?
I could always add this extra weight to the other side (can you even weigh
something that small?)
I would consider changing the skin if it were visible AND I wasn't almost
completely assembled.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Elevator skin repair suggestions
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
>
> Give serious thought to reskinning that area. Elevator is a balanced
> control surface. So either you will have a small difference in counter
> weight on that side if you add metal for a patch, or not. The skin
> isn't that expensive, it is mostly the time involved. I tend to think
> you will be happier in the long run with fresh skin, but that is your
> decision.
>
> On 10/17/06, jdalton77 <jdalton77@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks Jim,
>>
>> Good advice. The tear is both by the edge and on a curve, but I think I
>> can
>> make it work. Thanks.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jim Beyer
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Elevator skin repair suggestions |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
If you choose to add any weight, be very careful when flight testing the
airplane. The reason for balancing the control surfaces is to control
flutter. There have been cases where the extra weight of adding paint
to control surfaces caused them to flutter at high speeds.
I would doubt that such a small piece of aluminum would cause the
balance to change dramatically, but by the time you rivet it in place
with a doubler to support it, you might add enough to cause a problem.
Read Vaughn Askue's book "Flight Testing Homebuilt Aircraft" about how
to conduct flutter testing.
If it were me, I'd replace the skin before I would add weight to it.
Jack Phillips
#40610
Working on the HS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jdalton77
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Elevator skin repair suggestions
--> RV10-List message posted by: "jdalton77" <jdalton77@comcast.net>
Do you think a 2" square piece of .32 aluminum will affect elevator
balance?
I could always add this extra weight to the other side (can you even
weigh
something that small?)
I would consider changing the skin if it were visible AND I wasn't
almost
completely assembled.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Elevator skin repair suggestions
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
>
> Give serious thought to reskinning that area. Elevator is a balanced
> control surface. So either you will have a small difference in counter
> weight on that side if you add metal for a patch, or not. The skin
> isn't that expensive, it is mostly the time involved. I tend to think
> you will be happier in the long run with fresh skin, but that is your
> decision.
>
> On 10/17/06, jdalton77 <jdalton77@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks Jim,
>>
>> Good advice. The tear is both by the edge and on a curve, but I
think I
>> can
>> make it work. Thanks.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jim Beyer
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________
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: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Reading the previous post to which Jesse replied, I guess I think
part of the issue with the engine purchase choice that I
don't see the total logic in is that a lycoming is
"way too expensive for the average builder". 2 points.
First, so far the "Average RV-10 builder" has put in a Lycoming
IO-540 into their plane. (nothing against you Dan...
Mr. Soobie man. ;) )
Next, I think that many, but not all (yeah yeah yeah, not you
Mr. Bob K with your engine that keeps you out of mac-n-cheese
during the build) alternative engines will be found to eventually
cost just as much to install, with all the mods you'll have to
live through doing.
Then finally, I'd suggest that if someone truly thinks that
a Lyc. is outside of the "average" builders budget, then to me
that's just throwing up a huge red flag that maybe budget-wise
the person got in over their head with the RV-10 project.
So far I'm guessing that the *average* price of the finished
and flying RV-10's is actually OVER the $150K mark. The
RV-10 kit isn't really something I would see the "average"
person building...I'd think that most of us are a bit
above average if we can consider building an RV-10. The
average person where I live, lives in a family with about
a 40-45K/year family income...certainly not something that
will allow them to build an RV-10 in most cases. I feel this
3rd point is an important one because people really need to
know what they're getting into when they start the kit, and
it is truly not something everyone can or should try to afford.
Looking at the homebuilt market as a whole, I'd say the
"average builder" would be looking more towards buying an
RV-9 kit or maybe even less, from a cost perspective. The RV-10
will never be built...dare I say never EVER be built, for costs
similar to planes like RV-9's. One good comment I saw this
week was to plan for at least $20-30K more than you expect...
or was it 20-30%. I can say that until I actually had every
avionics item, paint, interior, and other item figured out
and priced (maybe just under 1 year from completion of the kit)
I had steadily been finding these unexpected things and
didn't have a predictable total...and it was probably $40-50K
beyond what I Initially figured my minimum build cost could
be...and $30-40 above my initial *expected* build cost. But,
to get what you want you sometimes have to adjust your
goals accordingly. Despite what you see invested in my panel,
my total cost is probably not actually that far out of whack
from what an "average" RV-10 will cost...for many reasons.
My guess is that a recently starting build may very well
end up spending within $10,000 to build an "average" RV-10.
But, averages are built on bell curves....so far most of
the completed RV-10's are probably very near center of the
curve for what you'll see when there are 100 or 200 of
them flying.
Lyc's are a big hunk of cash, no doubt, but in the overall
scheme of things, you're not going to save huge percentages
of the total cost by doing anything different. (Except
for you Bob K. ;) )
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jesse Saint wrote:
> I agree that we are stuck paying most of the certified price for an
> experimental version of the IO-540, and that stinks. I also know that
> people have tried making aircraft engines that will replace the
> lycosaurs and have failed. A perfect example is N450HP (Lancair 4P with
> aluminum block V8 in it) sitting in my shop here after 10+ years of
> building, waiting for engine, waiting for backup computer, waiting for
> better gearbox. It still hasnt flown and the guys that own it have so
> much stinking money invested in this stinking engine that they cant
> afford to take it off and put on a certified engine so they can fly it.
> I know this isnt always the case, but there are Continental and
> Lycoming engine all over the ramp that have a lot of flying hours on
> them, and just about every small plane A&P knows more about them then
> about the precious few other engines out there. I like what Superior is
> doing with their experimental engines, although they are not innovating
> much, but rather copying designs with small modifications. Again, they
> are improving a little bit on something very proven. I wish we could
> buy a 260HP experimental engine with a very proven track record for
> $20,000, but I dont see that happening. I know this is going to get a
> little heat from the Subaru fans, which is fine, but there are roughly
> 50 RV-10s flying with IO-540s and not nearly as many with anything
> else, which is where this whole discussion started. Get a row of
> Subie-10s at Oshkosh 2007 and I promise you there will be a lot more
> people getting on that train.
>
>
>
> Now, how to we convince Lycoming that we shouldnt be paying as much as
> we are for their experimental engines because they dont have the
> certified data tag. Oops, that crazy supply and demand curve is coming
> back again. I guess the flat answer is, they charge that much because
> they can and we still buy them. Were shooting ourselves in the foot
> (feet?), but are really enjoying the flying!
>
>
>
> 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 *jdalton77
> *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2006 3:08 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
>
>
> Jesse,
>
>
>
> I agree with everything you said . . . except one little thing :)
>
>
>
> The IO-540 is "almost" the perfect choice. Like any other aircraft
> engine - it's way too expensive for the average builder. It's does seem
> to be the perfect technical spec - just too costly to purchase and
> maintain (overhaul is also obscene).
>
>
>
> The rationale on aircraft parts in general, including engines, being so
> expensive is the liability and insurance that's required for certified
> aircraft. OK, I'll buy at least some of that. But Lycoming has ignored
> that concept altogether. While we can buy an airframe for a fraction of
> the cost of a certified airframe, we are still "stuck" with a
> "certified" price on an engine.
>
>
>
> It couldn't cost so much to build these could it?
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2006 1:50 PM
>
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
>
>
> 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/>_*
>
> *="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank">*
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> <>
>
> * *
>
> -- Date: 10/14/2006
>
> --
> 10/14/2006
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> -- Date: 10/16/2006
>
> --
> 10/16/2006
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: Weldment part |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern@teclabsinc.com>
John,
I think most of the original weldments are made out of stainless steel.
It's not so much the choice of material that has people concerned but
the welds or rather the lack of them. The aluminum ones are designed to
eliminate the weld and with it the possibility of the weld breaking.
Vern Smith(324)
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of johngoodman
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 6:17 PM
Subject: RV10-List: 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
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 |
|
The cost of a new Lycoming C4B5/D4A5 in certified status EXCHANGED is
almost 50 grand according to Lycoming 2006 pricing index. If no engine
core is available to swap out with them, you have to add the core value,
driving the cost over 60 thousand dollars. Lycoming won't even sell an
overhauled engine without a core return. This is because the core market
has dried up.
The experimental kit engine on the other hand is certainly a better
option cost wise, the down side being of course that it cannot be
certified even if maintained as such. The advantage is the shops that
build these kit engines have the capability to 'tailor' the engine to
your needs (within reason). There are lots of options to enhance the
performance of the engine that don't come in a certified factory engine.
Balanced rotating assemblies, re-worked cylinders, options on
accessories, higher compression just to name a few. The list goes on and
on.......
Liability is a factor in any business whether it's for profit or non
profit (although who's in business NOT to make a profit), big shop or
small. Just because the engines are experimental does not lessen the
liability on Lycoming's part. They are just as responsible whether it's
certified or experimental. The overhead to operate these engine shops
would shake you to your boots! Take a look for a minute. You have an
employee with 30 years of time invested in your company. He expects a
return for his investment (good wage, benefits) and rightly so, just as
production is expected from them. Multiply this by 6,500 employees as in
the case of Lycoming and other big manufacturers. Add to this the cost
of having organized labor, and you quickly add 30% to your overhead.
Utilities, taxes, wages, insurance both health and liability, freight,
all add to the cost of the product. This is one reason Lycoming out
sources where in years past all manufacturing was done in house. Now we
get back to the liability (again). Because of out sourcing the
manufacture of parts, quality control suffers because you can't keep as
tight a reign on it, which in turn raises the cost of liability. It is a
viscous cycle that seems to get bigger and bigger.
Allen Barrett
Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
www.barrettprecisionengines.com
<http://www.barrettprecisionengines.com/>
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jdalton77
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Jesse,
I agree with everything you said . . . except one little thing :)
The IO-540 is "almost" the perfect choice. Like any other aircraft
engine - it's way too expensive for the average builder. It's does seem
to be the perfect technical spec - just too costly to purchase and
maintain (overhaul is also obscene).
The rationale on aircraft parts in general, including engines, being so
expensive is the liability and insurance that's required for certified
aircraft. OK, I'll buy at least some of that. But Lycoming has ignored
that concept altogether. While we can buy an airframe for a fraction of
the cost of a certified airframe, we are still "stuck" with a
"certified" price on an engine.
It couldn't cost so much to build these could it?
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:50 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
I like the discussion I am reading about this. I agree completely with
Tim's 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't 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's doesn't publish 15k feet
performance on their planes). Again, having more power doesn't have to
be used if you don't want it (again, following Tim's 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't 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's what I would like
to see.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@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
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> 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: 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
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>
Well said John!
Thank you!
John G. 409
Do Not archive
>From: "John W. Cox" <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>
>
>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
>
<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/>
="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank">
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-- Date: 10/14/2006
--
10/14/2006
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
One should use the rule of threes on any aircraft project. Take the cost of
the airframe kit including the freight to get it to you, then add that cost
again for engine and prop, and again for avionics and finishing. The cost of
the airframe (QB) is 45-50K so triple it and you have the final costs to
have a decent flying machine. Same calculation works for two place kits.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Reading the previous post to which Jesse replied, I guess I think
part of the issue with the engine purchase choice that I
don't see the total logic in is that a lycoming is
"way too expensive for the average builder". 2 points.
First, so far the "Average RV-10 builder" has put in a Lycoming
IO-540 into their plane. (nothing against you Dan...
Mr. Soobie man. ;) )
Next, I think that many, but not all (yeah yeah yeah, not you
Mr. Bob K with your engine that keeps you out of mac-n-cheese
during the build) alternative engines will be found to eventually
cost just as much to install, with all the mods you'll have to
live through doing.
Then finally, I'd suggest that if someone truly thinks that
a Lyc. is outside of the "average" builders budget, then to me
that's just throwing up a huge red flag that maybe budget-wise
the person got in over their head with the RV-10 project.
So far I'm guessing that the *average* price of the finished
and flying RV-10's is actually OVER the $150K mark. The
RV-10 kit isn't really something I would see the "average"
person building...I'd think that most of us are a bit
above average if we can consider building an RV-10. The
average person where I live, lives in a family with about
a 40-45K/year family income...certainly not something that
will allow them to build an RV-10 in most cases. I feel this
3rd point is an important one because people really need to
know what they're getting into when they start the kit, and
it is truly not something everyone can or should try to afford.
Looking at the homebuilt market as a whole, I'd say the
"average builder" would be looking more towards buying an
RV-9 kit or maybe even less, from a cost perspective. The RV-10
will never be built...dare I say never EVER be built, for costs
similar to planes like RV-9's. One good comment I saw this
week was to plan for at least $20-30K more than you expect...
or was it 20-30%. I can say that until I actually had every
avionics item, paint, interior, and other item figured out
and priced (maybe just under 1 year from completion of the kit)
I had steadily been finding these unexpected things and
didn't have a predictable total...and it was probably $40-50K
beyond what I Initially figured my minimum build cost could
be...and $30-40 above my initial *expected* build cost. But,
to get what you want you sometimes have to adjust your
goals accordingly. Despite what you see invested in my panel,
my total cost is probably not actually that far out of whack
from what an "average" RV-10 will cost...for many reasons.
My guess is that a recently starting build may very well
end up spending within $10,000 to build an "average" RV-10.
But, averages are built on bell curves....so far most of
the completed RV-10's are probably very near center of the
curve for what you'll see when there are 100 or 200 of
them flying.
Lyc's are a big hunk of cash, no doubt, but in the overall
scheme of things, you're not going to save huge percentages
of the total cost by doing anything different. (Except
for you Bob K. ;) )
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jesse Saint wrote:
> I agree that we are stuck paying most of the certified price for an
> experimental version of the IO-540, and that stinks. I also know that
> people have tried making aircraft engines that will replace the lycosaurs
> and have failed. A perfect example is N450HP (Lancair 4P with aluminum
> block V8 in it) sitting in my shop here after 10+ years of building,
> waiting for engine, waiting for backup computer, waiting for better
> gearbox. It still hasnt flown and the guys that own it have so much
> stinking money invested in this stinking engine that they cant afford to
> take it off and put on a certified engine so they can fly it. I know this
> isnt always the case, but there are Continental and Lycoming engine all
> over the ramp that have a lot of flying hours on them, and just about
> every small plane A&P knows more about them then about the precious few
> other engines out there. I like what Superior is doing with their
> experimental engines, although they are not innovating much, but rather
> copying designs with small modifications. Again, they are improving a
> little bit on something very proven. I wish we could buy a 260HP
> experimental engine with a very proven track record for $20,000, but I dont
> see that happening. I know this is going to get a little heat from the
> Subaru fans, which is fine, but there are roughly 50 RV-10s flying with
> IO-540s and not nearly as many with anything else, which is where this
> whole discussion started. Get a row of Subie-10s at Oshkosh 2007 and I
> promise you there will be a lot more people getting on that train.
>
>
> Now, how to we convince Lycoming that we shouldnt be paying as much as we
> are for their experimental engines because they dont have the certified
> data tag. Oops, that crazy supply and demand curve is coming back again.
> I guess the flat answer is, they charge that much because they can and we
> still buy them. Were shooting ourselves in the foot (feet?), but are
> really enjoying the flying!
>
>
> 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 *jdalton77
> *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2006 3:08 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
>
> Jesse,
>
>
> I agree with everything you said . . . except one little thing :)
>
>
> The IO-540 is "almost" the perfect choice. Like any other aircraft
> engine - it's way too expensive for the average builder. It's does seem
> to be the perfect technical spec - just too costly to purchase and
> maintain (overhaul is also obscene).
>
>
> The rationale on aircraft parts in general, including engines, being so
> expensive is the liability and insurance that's required for certified
> aircraft. OK, I'll buy at least some of that. But Lycoming has ignored
> that concept altogether. While we can buy an airframe for a fraction of
> the cost of a certified airframe, we are still "stuck" with a "certified"
> price on an engine.
>
>
> It couldn't cost so much to build these could it?
>
>
> Jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2006 1:50 PM
>
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
>
> 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/>_*
>
> *="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank">*
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> <>
>
> * *
>
> -- Date: 10/14/2006
>
> --
> 10/14/2006
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
>
> *href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> -- Date: 10/16/2006
>
> --
> 10/16/2006
>
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
| Subject: | Elevator skin repair suggestions |
Square patches indicate 90 degree corners and 90 degree corners equals
stress risers. Try to avoid any sharp corners in that type of repair.
I also agree with others that you might want to seriously consider
reskinning. It will bug you until you do it anyway. :-)
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Should restart building Jan 1
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Beyer
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 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: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Speaking of the Subie and Dan, how goes it with that engine? You
keeping a log anywhere on the experience with it. I for one am very
anxious to find out how it works out, even if Jan and co think I'm
against it for asking straight questions. I at least trust Dan to give
us the straight talk on it. Anyone else out there making any progress
with the Subie or other conversions?
On another note, Eci will hopefully have their clone ready sometime
next year (was supposed to be this year). I haven't checked with them
in quite a while but they expected the cost to be "considerably" less
than a new or "X" Lyc 540. We shall see.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Reading the previous post to which Jesse replied, I guess I think part
of the issue with the engine purchase choice that I don't see the total
logic in is that a lycoming is
"way too expensive for the average builder". 2 points.
First, so far the "Average RV-10 builder" has put in a Lycoming IO-540
into their plane. (nothing against you Dan...
Mr. Soobie man. ;) )
Next, I think that many, but not all (yeah yeah yeah, not you Mr. Bob K
with your engine that keeps you out of mac-n-cheese during the build)
alternative engines will be found to eventually cost just as much to
install, with all the mods you'll have to live through doing.
Then finally, I'd suggest that if someone truly thinks that a Lyc. is
outside of the "average" builders budget, then to me that's just
throwing up a huge red flag that maybe budget-wise the person got in
over their head with the RV-10 project.
So far I'm guessing that the *average* price of the finished and flying
RV-10's is actually OVER the $150K mark. The RV-10 kit isn't really
something I would see the "average"
person building...I'd think that most of us are a bit above average if
we can consider building an RV-10. The average person where I live,
lives in a family with about a 40-45K/year family income...certainly not
something that
will allow them to build an RV-10 in most cases. I feel this
3rd point is an important one because people really need to know what
they're getting into when they start the kit, and it is truly not
something everyone can or should try to afford.
Looking at the homebuilt market as a whole, I'd say the "average
builder" would be looking more towards buying an
RV-9 kit or maybe even less, from a cost perspective. The RV-10 will
never be built...dare I say never EVER be built, for costs
similar to planes like RV-9's. One good comment I saw this
week was to plan for at least $20-30K more than you expect...
or was it 20-30%. I can say that until I actually had every avionics
item, paint, interior, and other item figured out and priced (maybe just
under 1 year from completion of the kit) I had steadily been finding
these unexpected things and didn't have a predictable total...and it was
probably $40-50K beyond what I Initially figured my minimum build cost
could be...and $30-40 above my initial *expected* build cost. But, to
get what you want you sometimes have to adjust your
goals accordingly. Despite what you see invested in my panel,
my total cost is probably not actually that far out of whack from what
an "average" RV-10 will cost...for many reasons.
My guess is that a recently starting build may very well end up spending
within $10,000 to build an "average" RV-10.
But, averages are built on bell curves....so far most of the completed
RV-10's are probably very near center of the curve for what you'll see
when there are 100 or 200 of them flying.
Lyc's are a big hunk of cash, no doubt, but in the overall scheme of
things, you're not going to save huge percentages of the total cost by
doing anything different. (Except for you Bob K. ;) )
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=11795
Here is a little write up from my first flight I just posted if any of
you are interested.
Thanks John and everyone else for the congratulations. Can't wait for
more of you to finish. Looks like I was #55.
It's amazing there are already 55 of these flying. Now if the weather
here in Salt Lake would clear I could fly some hours off.
Scott Schmidt
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: "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt@ussynthetic.com>
Great post Tim. I agree with everything you say. The most expensive RV I have
heard of so far (and it's not me) was $210,000. The way you get that high is
you start letting others do your painting, wiring, upholstery, ect...
If I had to guess I would say the average cost for an RV right now is $150,000
with the high at $210,000 and the low at $95,000. But you should be able to build
a nice RV-10 with new engine and prop for $120,000 if you don't go over board
with avionics. I know I planned for $120,000 and missed that by a little.
Scott Schmidt
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
One should use the rule of threes on any aircraft project. Take the cost of
the airframe kit including the freight to get it to you, then add that cost
again for engine and prop, and again for avionics and finishing. The cost of
the airframe (QB) is 45-50K so triple it and you have the final costs to
have a decent flying machine. Same calculation works for two place kits.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Reading the previous post to which Jesse replied, I guess I think
part of the issue with the engine purchase choice that I
don't see the total logic in is that a lycoming is
"way too expensive for the average builder". 2 points.
First, so far the "Average RV-10 builder" has put in a Lycoming
IO-540 into their plane. (nothing against you Dan...
Mr. Soobie man. ;) )
Next, I think that many, but not all (yeah yeah yeah, not you
Mr. Bob K with your engine that keeps you out of mac-n-cheese
during the build) alternative engines will be found to eventually
cost just as much to install, with all the mods you'll have to
live through doing.
Then finally, I'd suggest that if someone truly thinks that
a Lyc. is outside of the "average" builders budget, then to me
that's just throwing up a huge red flag that maybe budget-wise
the person got in over their head with the RV-10 project.
So far I'm guessing that the *average* price of the finished
and flying RV-10's is actually OVER the $150K mark. The
RV-10 kit isn't really something I would see the "average"
person building...I'd think that most of us are a bit
above average if we can consider building an RV-10. The
average person where I live, lives in a family with about
a 40-45K/year family income...certainly not something that
will allow them to build an RV-10 in most cases. I feel this
3rd point is an important one because people really need to
know what they're getting into when they start the kit, and
it is truly not something everyone can or should try to afford.
Looking at the homebuilt market as a whole, I'd say the
"average builder" would be looking more towards buying an
RV-9 kit or maybe even less, from a cost perspective. The RV-10
will never be built...dare I say never EVER be built, for costs
similar to planes like RV-9's. One good comment I saw this
week was to plan for at least $20-30K more than you expect...
or was it 20-30%. I can say that until I actually had every
avionics item, paint, interior, and other item figured out
and priced (maybe just under 1 year from completion of the kit)
I had steadily been finding these unexpected things and
didn't have a predictable total...and it was probably $40-50K
beyond what I Initially figured my minimum build cost could
be...and $30-40 above my initial *expected* build cost. But,
to get what you want you sometimes have to adjust your
goals accordingly. Despite what you see invested in my panel,
my total cost is probably not actually that far out of whack
from what an "average" RV-10 will cost...for many reasons.
My guess is that a recently starting build may very well
end up spending within $10,000 to build an "average" RV-10.
But, averages are built on bell curves....so far most of
the completed RV-10's are probably very near center of the
curve for what you'll see when there are 100 or 200 of
them flying.
Lyc's are a big hunk of cash, no doubt, but in the overall
scheme of things, you're not going to save huge percentages
of the total cost by doing anything different. (Except
for you Bob K. ;) )
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jesse Saint wrote:
> I agree that we are stuck paying most of the certified price for an
> experimental version of the IO-540, and that stinks. I also know that
> people have tried making aircraft engines that will replace the lycosaurs
> and have failed. A perfect example is N450HP (Lancair 4P with aluminum
> block V8 in it) sitting in my shop here after 10+ years of building,
> waiting for engine, waiting for backup computer, waiting for better
> gearbox. It still hasn't flown and the guys that own it have so much
> stinking money invested in this stinking engine that they can't afford to
> take it off and put on a certified engine so they can fly it. I know this
> isn't always the case, but there are Continental and Lycoming engine all
> over the ramp that have a lot of flying hours on them, and just about
> every small plane A&P knows more about them then about the precious few
> other engines out there. I like what Superior is doing with their
> experimental engines, although they are not innovating much, but rather
> copying designs with small modifications. Again, they are improving a
> little bit on something very proven. I wish we could buy a 260HP
> experimental engine with a very proven track record for $20,000, but I don't
> see that happening. I know this is going to get a little heat from the
> Subaru fans, which is fine, but there are roughly 50 RV-10's flying with
> IO-540's and "not nearly as many" with anything else, which is where this
> whole discussion started. Get a row of Subie-10's at Oshkosh 2007 and I
> promise you there will be a lot more people getting on that train.
>
>
> Now, how to we convince Lycoming that we shouldn't be paying as much as we
> are for their experimental engines because they don't have the certified
> data tag. Oops, that crazy supply and demand curve is coming back again.
> I guess the flat answer is, they charge that much because they can and we
> still buy them. We're shooting ourselves in the foot (feet?), but are
> really enjoying the flying!
>
>
> 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 *jdalton77
> *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2006 3:08 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
>
> Jesse,
>
>
> I agree with everything you said . . . except one little thing :)
>
>
> The IO-540 is "almost" the perfect choice. Like any other aircraft
> engine - it's way too expensive for the average builder. It's does seem
> to be the perfect technical spec - just too costly to purchase and
> maintain (overhaul is also obscene).
>
>
> The rationale on aircraft parts in general, including engines, being so
> expensive is the liability and insurance that's required for certified
> aircraft. OK, I'll buy at least some of that. But Lycoming has ignored
> that concept altogether. While we can buy an airframe for a fraction of
> the cost of a certified airframe, we are still "stuck" with a "certified"
> price on an engine.
>
>
> It couldn't cost so much to build these could it?
>
>
> Jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2006 1:50 PM
>
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
>
> I like the discussion I am reading about this. I agree completely
> with Tim's 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't 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's doesn't publish 15k feet performance
> on their planes). Again, having more power doesn't have to be used
> if you don't want it (again, following Tim's 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't 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's
> 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/>_*
>
> *="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" target="_blank">*
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> <>
>
> * *
>
> -- Date: 10/14/2006
>
> --
> 10/14/2006
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
>
> *href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> -- Date: 10/16/2006
>
> --
> 10/16/2006
>
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: First Flight |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Very Awesome, Scott, great story! You should post the text here, with
one photo, so nobody misses the good stuff. I've said it to a couple
people already, but your paint looks the prettiest of any I've seen.
You did a fantastic job, and it's great to have you as a new member
in the FLYING RV-10 club! One more guy to attend the future RV-10
North America fly-in!
PS: congrats on getting the 25 hour flyoff....your DAR knew what he was
doing.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Scott Schmidt wrote:
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=11795
>
>
>
> Here is a little write up from my first flight I just posted if any of
> you are interested.
>
>
>
> Thanks John and everyone else for the congratulations. Cant wait for
> more of you to finish. Looks like I was #55.
>
> Its amazing there are already 55 of these flying. Now if the weather
> here in Salt Lake would clear I could fly some hours off.
>
>
>
> Scott Schmidt
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FW: [LML] Lancair driver make the AVWEB news |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Scott Schmidt" <sschmidt@ussynthetic.com>
Sorry about not keeping up on my postings and my website. I've been in
the process of switching servers but I've been so busy working the plane
these past 4 weeks. Now with the airplane up at the hanger it is a 30
minute drive each way and I have less time to keep up. But as you can
tell, I feel like I am over the big hurdles now. I am just now catching
up on e-mail from weeks ago as you can tell.
I'll make up for it with the video coming out soon.
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:46 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: FW: [LML] Lancair driver make the AVWEB news
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Then he must have abandoned the faithful who have watched patiently for
pictures of his progress.
John Cox #600
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: FW: [LML] Lancair driver make the AVWEB news
--> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
On VAF Scott posted a msg indicating that he had completed his DAR
inspection and was awaiting someone to do a pitot/static check before
flying.
Deems Davis # 406
Panel/Finishing
http://deemsrv10.com/
John W. Cox wrote:
> As the weather makes its annual pilgrimage South this time of year.
> Visions of a trip to OSH '07 begin to dance in my head. This story
> reminds me of the unnecessary loss of life the last few years and how
> a few bad apples get most of the press. I am still patiently waiting
> for Scott to post the last thirty days of construction progress.
>
> John Cox
>
> N49CX RV-10 in process
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] *On Behalf
> Of *N320GG
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 10, 2006 9:00 AM
> *To:* Lancair Mailing List
> *Subject:* [LML] Lancair driver make the AVWEB news
>
> "A Lancair pilot flew the published warbird arrival rather than the
> general aviation arrival. He was followed to parking and interviewed.
> His arrogance astonished the volunteer who spoke with him; it seems
> that the pilot was of the opinion that because he flew a fast airplane
> he could use the warbird arrival and the EAA volunteer who had the
> temerity to express a dissenting opinion could go to where it is
> reputed to be extremely warm for eternity. "
>
> For all of the story:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/193321-1.html
>
> For a link to the audio mentioned:
>
> http://www.oshawapilot.ca/?p=342
>
> Gary Melton
>
> N320GG LNC2
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
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 |
|
Our EAA group will be touring the Lycoming factory next week and I can bring
up the subject of experimentals for RV 10's if you like...but I'm sure they
are not really targeting the RV market rather assuming that we will all just
jump on the bandwagon.
Patrick Scott
EAA 240 Prez
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Steve Mills" <millstees@ameritech.net>
Michael,
I am building an RV-10 with the H-6 Subaru, and will be receiving my engine
in the same batch as Dan Lloyd.
Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:11 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
<rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Speaking of the Subie and Dan, how goes it with that engine? You
keeping a log anywhere on the experience with it. I for one am very
anxious to find out how it works out, even if Jan and co think I'm
against it for asking straight questions. I at least trust Dan to give
us the straight talk on it. Anyone else out there making any progress
with the Subie or other conversions?
On another note, Eci will hopefully have their clone ready sometime
next year (was supposed to be this year). I haven't checked with them
in quite a while but they expected the cost to be "considerably" less
than a new or "X" Lyc 540. We shall see.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Reading the previous post to which Jesse replied, I guess I think part
of the issue with the engine purchase choice that I don't see the total
logic in is that a lycoming is
"way too expensive for the average builder". 2 points.
First, so far the "Average RV-10 builder" has put in a Lycoming IO-540
into their plane. (nothing against you Dan...
Mr. Soobie man. ;) )
Next, I think that many, but not all (yeah yeah yeah, not you Mr. Bob K
with your engine that keeps you out of mac-n-cheese during the build)
alternative engines will be found to eventually cost just as much to
install, with all the mods you'll have to live through doing.
Then finally, I'd suggest that if someone truly thinks that a Lyc. is
outside of the "average" builders budget, then to me that's just
throwing up a huge red flag that maybe budget-wise the person got in
over their head with the RV-10 project.
So far I'm guessing that the *average* price of the finished and flying
RV-10's is actually OVER the $150K mark. The RV-10 kit isn't really
something I would see the "average"
person building...I'd think that most of us are a bit above average if
we can consider building an RV-10. The average person where I live,
lives in a family with about a 40-45K/year family income...certainly not
something that
will allow them to build an RV-10 in most cases. I feel this
3rd point is an important one because people really need to know what
they're getting into when they start the kit, and it is truly not
something everyone can or should try to afford.
Looking at the homebuilt market as a whole, I'd say the "average
builder" would be looking more towards buying an
RV-9 kit or maybe even less, from a cost perspective. The RV-10 will
never be built...dare I say never EVER be built, for costs
similar to planes like RV-9's. One good comment I saw this
week was to plan for at least $20-30K more than you expect...
or was it 20-30%. I can say that until I actually had every avionics
item, paint, interior, and other item figured out and priced (maybe just
under 1 year from completion of the kit) I had steadily been finding
these unexpected things and didn't have a predictable total...and it was
probably $40-50K beyond what I Initially figured my minimum build cost
could be...and $30-40 above my initial *expected* build cost. But, to
get what you want you sometimes have to adjust your
goals accordingly. Despite what you see invested in my panel,
my total cost is probably not actually that far out of whack from what
an "average" RV-10 will cost...for many reasons.
My guess is that a recently starting build may very well end up spending
within $10,000 to build an "average" RV-10.
But, averages are built on bell curves....so far most of the completed
RV-10's are probably very near center of the curve for what you'll see
when there are 100 or 200 of them flying.
Lyc's are a big hunk of cash, no doubt, but in the overall scheme of
things, you're not going to save huge percentages of the total cost by
doing anything different. (Except for you Bob K. ;) )
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Top Mount Antennas (ammended) |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Jack,
Its like a light went off in your head.
I can't wait till I get to the piont in my project where it all comes
together. For now I have been concentrating on making the gaps between all
my control surface counterbalance arms as tight as possible making sure I
consider flex during flight which might inadvertently make those gaps
smaller and lead to binding. As one of my previous post stated the fairing
that came in my kit for the VS was way short of where I thought it should
be, about 3/16" open to 1/4". I added a carbon fiber extention.
I've also used a structural foam called SPYDER FOAM to make a foam core
sandwhich in these close out areas of these fairings. Although the plans
call for the removal of the foam and making these closeouts solid 3 ply
glass( 9 oz). I used one layer of 7.5 oz on the inside and 2 plys of 5.5 oz
carbon fiber cloth on the outside. Fiberglass core sandwhich is stronger and
lighter. 11 onces of carbon cloth equals the strength of about 33ounces of
regular glass.
The foam allows the builder to make complex shapes, concave surface to these
closeouts allowing the flanges to be more closed, but still allows the
corners of the counterbalance arms to clear the center of the closeout.
Here is a source for these products:
Aerospace Composite ProductsAerospace Composite Products has been a supplier
of composite materials since 1985. We offer a large variety of composite
materials specifically developed ...
www.acp-composites.com/
Why am I saying all this? Alfter all the posts about engines, HP loss and
weight and balance issues, here are the other things you can absolutely do
to make your plane fly faster, use less Hp, burn less fuel, use and
alternate engine! Gap seal all your control surface interfaces, top and
bottom with mylar gap seals or make your own out of Kevlar and resin. Teflon
friction tape where things come together.
Do you really only get 80HP out of a 260 HP engine while at 16K altitude?
why wouldn't everyone do what I am suggesting? But then why do somepeople
drive Hummers and Escalades while I drive a Prius?
To each their own, but please turn off your lights in your house when your
not using them!
JOhn G. 409
>From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Top Mount Antennas
>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:49:07 -0400
>
>In the "For What it's Worth" departement, I just finished the condition
>inspection of my RV-4. The previous owner had a Loran installed, which
>didn't come with the airplane but its antenna (and associated cabling)
>was still installed. I removed the antenna and cable during the
>condition inspection and found that I picked up nearly 5 mph in cruise
>speed. This antenna had a teardrop shaped base, with a whip that
>extended swept back about 45 degrees to a height of about 12" above the
>turtledeck of the airplane (behind the canopy), and then continued aft
>about 18" parallel to the turtledeck. Total weight of the antenna and
>cable was about 3 lbs.
>
>
>Based on this experience, I will do everything possible to keep my
>antennas buried, or will use blade type antennas if projecting out into
>the slipstream. A blade has a much lower drag coefficient than a round
>rod.
>
>
>Jack Phillips
>
># 40610
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
>Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:31 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Top Mount Antennas
>
>
>Mimic antenna locations you find on production planes parked on the
>ramp? When I look down the ramp, my plane is the only one with no
>antenna clutter on the top. Most of them have 2-6 antennas somewhere on
>the top and I have none. Beyond that, antenna placement on the belly on
>the ramp is a good place to start. I personally like the clean top
>look.
>
>
>Do not archive.
>
>
>Jesse Saint
>
>I-TEC, Inc.
>
>jesse@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 Rob Kermanj
>Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 6:53 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Top Mount Antennas
>
>
>My concern would be the lack of ground plane. You need a diameter about
>twice the length of the antenna for ground plane (ideally). If you
>provide a foil below in the cabin, be @#% sure that you have a good
>ground from the antenna base to the foil. Better yet, consider
>attaching the antenna to the tail cone. Of course you can't go wrong by
>installing both antennas below the belly.
>
>
>Antenna location and RFI is part art, part science. Hard to predict
>what it will do to your panel. Mimic antenna locations you find on
>production planes parked on the ramp.
>
>
>do not archive
>
>Rob
>
>
>On Oct 17, 2006, at 2:53 AM, McGANN, Ron wrote:
>
>
>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
>
> - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>class="Apple-converted-space"> --> http://forums.matronics.com
>- List Contribution Web Site - -Matt Dralle,
>List Admin. class="Apple-converted-space"> -->
>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
>
>
>--
>10/16/2006
>
>
>--
>10/16/2006
>
>
>_________________________________________________
>
>This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
>privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
>received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
>
>Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N
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 |
|
In a message dated 10/17/2006 11:08:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
BPA@bpaengines.com writes:
Add to this the cost of having organized labor, and you quickly add 30% to
your overhead.
Allan,
I guess that the point that many of the kit builders don't understand is the
benefits and union rates the workers receive!!! Please before I get the
anti union comments...I'm pro union and if the union can provide great employees
and be competitive I'm in their corner. Either way, Lycoming makes a good
reliable engine and it seems to be the engine of choice for many Van's
builders.
Patrick
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: First Flight |
Congratulation and nice, informative pictures and text.
do not archive
Rob
On Oct 17, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Scott Schmidt wrote:
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=11795
>
>
> Here is a little write up from my first flight I just posted if any
> of you are interested.
>
>
> Thanks John and everyone else for the congratulations. Can=92t wait
> for more of you to finish. Looks like I was #55.
>
> It=92s amazing there are already 55 of these flying. Now if the
> weather here in Salt Lake would clear I could fly some hours off.
>
>
> Scott Schmidt
>
>
List
> ========================
> ========================
the
> ========================
> ========================
>
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: First Flight |
Great Inspiration Scott!
Beautiful Plane...
(Not a bad hangar either)
Jeff Carpenter
Going to work a bit harder on the flaps right now
40304
Do Not Archive
On Oct 17, 2006, at 9:41 AM, Scott Schmidt wrote:
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=11795
>
>
> Here is a little write up from my first flight I just posted if any
> of you are interested.
>
>
> Thanks John and everyone else for the congratulations. Can=92t wait
> for more of you to finish. Looks like I was #55.
>
> It=92s amazing there are already 55 of these flying. Now if the
> weather here in Salt Lake would clear I could fly some hours off.
>
>
> Scott Schmidt
>
>
List
> ========================
> ========================
the
> ========================
> ========================
>
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 |
|
No shooting balls of fire at anyone regarding unions, just stating the
fact that it does increase operating costs by a significant amount.
Agreed, unions have their place. I don't believe that Superior or ECI
have organized labor (I could be wrong) which might account for part of
the difference in price of an engine. I think there are other factors
that drive the price up which are probably not appropriate topics for
this list, but I don't think it is greed on anyone's part. We believe
in Lycoming products, otherwise we wouldn't sell them.
Allen
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GRANSCOTT@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
In a message dated 10/17/2006 11:08:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
BPA@bpaengines.com writes:
Add to this the cost of having organized labor, and you quickly
add 30% to your overhead.
Allan,
I guess that the point that many of the kit builders don't understand is
the benefits and union rates the workers receive!!! Please before I get
the anti union comments...I'm pro union and if the union can provide
great employees and be competitive I'm in their corner. Either way,
Lycoming makes a good reliable engine and it seems to be the engine of
choice for many Van's builders.
Patrick
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern@teclabsinc.com>
John,
I worried about 100LL for a while until I realized it isn't like when 80
octane went away. Think of all those new (read expensive) Cirrus,
Cessnas, Mooneys, Pipers, Columibias out there and they all burn 100LL.
This represents a sizable investment in the fleet not to mention the
companies behind them. If the lead producers go away there will be an
alternative other than mogas, expensive yes but still there.
But let's say I'm dead wrong. The beauty of experimentals are the
latitude we have. So if 100LL goes away next year, build new fuel tanks
that are compatible with ? fuel. Convert that IO-540 to an O-540 and run
mogas, E85 ect. Pull the Lycoming and put the new vegetable oil burning
turbine on.
One leading indicator about fuel is going to be the certified aircraft
manufactures. If they start seriously moving away from 100LL to say JetA
then the games a foot. Until then enjoy building, then enjoy flying, and
just plan your TBO around the demise of 100LL:)
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 johngoodman
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 6:55 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> 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
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: First Flight |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
That thing looks so good you don't even recognize the lack of gear fairings
and wheel pants.
Beautiful job!
John G. 409
Do not archive.
>From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: First Flight
>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:23:24 -0500
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
>Very Awesome, Scott, great story! You should post the text here, with
>one photo, so nobody misses the good stuff. I've said it to a couple
>people already, but your paint looks the prettiest of any I've seen.
>You did a fantastic job, and it's great to have you as a new member
>in the FLYING RV-10 club! One more guy to attend the future RV-10
>North America fly-in!
>
>PS: congrats on getting the 25 hour flyoff....your DAR knew what he was
>doing.
>
>Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>do not archive
>
>
>Scott Schmidt wrote:
>>http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=11795
>>
>>
>>
>>Here is a little write up from my first flight I just posted if any of you
>>are interested.
>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks John and everyone else for the congratulations. Cant wait for
>>more of you to finish. Looks like I was #55.
>>
>>Its amazing there are already 55 of these flying. Now if the weather here
>>in Salt Lake would clear I could fly some hours off.
>>
>>
>>
>>Scott Schmidt
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
You are right - as long as people continue to buy and there is no
competition, Lycoming and Continental can charge us full price as if
they had the same liability as a certified aircraft, but without the
responsibility.
You can bet they are getting a deal on their insurance on their
so-called experimental engines. Too bad they won't be passing any of
that on to us.
Boy I wish Innodyn was real . . . .
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:43 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
I agree that we are stuck paying most of the certified price for an
experimental version of the IO-540, and that stinks. I also know that
people have tried making aircraft engines that will replace the
lycosaurs and have failed. A perfect example is N450HP (Lancair 4P with
aluminum block V8 in it) sitting in my shop here after 10+ years of
building, waiting for engine, waiting for backup computer, waiting for
better gearbox. It still hasn't flown and the guys that own it have so
much stinking money invested in this stinking engine that they can't
afford to take it off and put on a certified engine so they can fly it.
I know this isn't always the case, but there are Continental and
Lycoming engine all over the ramp that have a lot of flying hours on
them, and just about every small plane A&P knows more about them then
about the precious few other engines out there. I like what Superior is
doing with their experimental engines, although they are not innovating
much, but rather copying designs with small modifications. Again, they
are improving a little bit on something very proven. I wish we could
buy a 260HP experimental engine with a very proven track record for
$20,000, but I don't see that happening. I know this is going to get a
little heat from the Subaru fans, which is fine, but there are roughly
50 RV-10's flying with IO-540's and "not nearly as many" with anything
else, which is where this whole discussion started. Get a row of
Subie-10's at Oshkosh 2007 and I promise you there will be a lot more
people getting on that train.
Now, how to we convince Lycoming that we shouldn't be paying as much
as we are for their experimental engines because they don't have the
certified data tag. Oops, that crazy supply and demand curve is coming
back again. I guess the flat answer is, they charge that much because
they can and we still buy them. We're shooting ourselves in the foot
(feet?), but are really enjoying the flying!
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@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 jdalton77
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 3:08 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Jesse,
I agree with everything you said . . . except one little thing :)
The IO-540 is "almost" the perfect choice. Like any other aircraft
engine - it's way too expensive for the average builder. It's does seem
to be the perfect technical spec - just too costly to purchase and
maintain (overhaul is also obscene).
The rationale on aircraft parts in general, including engines, being
so expensive is the liability and insurance that's required for
certified aircraft. OK, I'll buy at least some of that. But Lycoming
has ignored that concept altogether. While we can buy an airframe for a
fraction of the cost of a certified airframe, we are still "stuck" with
a "certified" price on an engine.
It couldn't cost so much to build these could it?
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:50 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
I like the discussion I am reading about this. I agree completely
with Tim's 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't 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's doesn't publish 15k feet
performance on their planes). Again, having more power doesn't have to
be used if you don't want it (again, following Tim's 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't 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's what
I would like to see.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@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
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> 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: 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 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
>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhref="htt
p://forums.matronics.com/"
target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.comhref="http://wiki.matronic
s.com/" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com="return
top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-- Date: 10/14/2006
--
10/14/2006
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List -- Date: 10/16/2006
--
10/16/2006
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
I somehow thought that a number of builders were going with AeroSport
or BPA or similar sourced overhauled Lyc. engine, with savings in the
5-10K range over a new Lyc from Vans. Or overhauling their own engine.
Am I wrong or is there good reason to go with the factory new engine?
I see any engine with crank made after 1996 as a minus, as most have
AD, or have been replaced with new version, about little is known
other than Lyc somehow changed specs, because the 1996 specs caused
the original problem(or their forger, who knows). All we really know
is that the older cranks are very proven.
On 10/17/06, GRANSCOTT@aol.com <GRANSCOTT@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 10/17/2006 11:08:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> BPA@bpaengines.com writes:
> Add to this the cost of having organized labor, and you quickly add 30% to
> your overhead.
>
> Allan,
>
> I guess that the point that many of the kit builders don't understand is the
> benefits and union rates the workers receive!!! Please before I get the
> anti union comments...I'm pro union and if the union can provide great
> employees and be competitive I'm in their corner. Either way, Lycoming
> makes a good reliable engine and it seems to be the engine of choice for
> many Van's builders.
>
> Patrick
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: | First flight write up. |
Here is the write up I put in Van's Airforce with a couple shot.
Saturday was a great day all around. The winds were 0-3 knots, 60
degrees OAT, and I didn't sleep one wink that night.
I know everyone says don't have alot of people come to the first flight
but that is one rule that I didn't follow. I let everyone know that
wanted to know but it was still mostly my family and my wife's family.
There were the usual airport groupies that were hanging around and two
of my best friends from work were there too.
I did a preflight on the plane early that morning and then Ray did one
too. My friend Mark Patey came up from Spanish Fork airport in his RV-6A
to fly chase and we went through the flight on the ground first. I was
going to climb out (4230ft airport elevation) to 6500 ft. and orbit the
airport below Class B. I wasn't going to touch the power settings until
at least 6000 ft. There have been many engines that have quit when
people started to pull back RPM's or MP. I was then going to fly 65% to
75% power for at least 20 minutes, then go into some slow flight and get
some airspeed numbers. Then back to full power for 10 more minutes and
land.
I walked the plane one more time, made sure I had my POH (Thanks Tim)
and my notes that I had made and strapped in. I did mount a camera in
the plane. My friend's wife walked into the hanger as I was duct taping
the tripod to the floor. I think she thought I was putting in the last
few critical pieces. By the way, we will be putting the duct tape on
e-bay from the first flight. The video is awesome from inside, can't
wait to get it edited so everyone can see it. You can see the camera in
the back in some pictures.
My wife took a camera and flew with Mark in the chase aircraft and again
some of the formation video turned out great. Because there was really
no wind and my hanger is on the south end of the airport we had to make
some calls and reverse the pattern. I did not want to taxi my new engine
all the way to the other end and everyone was really nice about it. We
then both taxied out to the end of 34 and I did my final checks.
So there I was sitting at the end of the runway ready to take off. This
is the moment we all think about over and over again after long nights
of deburring, riveting, wiring, sanding, painting, troubleshooting, and
day dreaming at work. I've always thought that I would get to end of
runway, take a big breath and really take it all in. Well, I got out
there and I was ready, the plane was ready and I just wanted to fly.
I added one notch of flaps, turn the fuel pump on, checked for the 10th
time that the fuel was on and all instruments were set and made the
announcement, "OK, here we go!"
The next few moments were very routine thanks to Mike Seager and 410RV.
I went up and flew 8.5 hours in 410RV and had 44 landings with Mike.
Everything felt identical in this takeoff. The plane accelerated
quickly, I pulled the nose off within the first 200 feet and just held
it up and we were airborne before the first exit. I am going to go out
there someday and measure it because it seemed shorter than 500 ft.
The RPM's were right around 2710 on climb out, I actually pulled them
back to 2650 on my down wind and then back to 2500 at 6000 ft.
It was great to have a chase plane there for the 30 minute flight. I
didn't have to make any radio calls, I monitored the airport frequency
but left it on 123.45 and talked with the ground and with Mark in the
chase plane. I was able to focus on the flying and monitoring engine
parameters.
During the flight my airspeed seemed to be 5-6 knots slower at 140 knots
than Marks RV-6A, and at 100 knots seemed to be around 4-5 knots. My CHT
maxed at 410 on climb out and then cooled and stabilized at 385 F with
75% power. My oil temp never went above 185 F. The engine ran flawless
(Great job Aerosport).
I made one more upwind leg and started to slow her down to 85 knots for
the first notch of flaps. Then I set up for a 78 knot decent and added
the second notch (20 degrees). I didn't add full flaps because with only
one or two people in the plane you can't trim out all the control forces
with 30 degrees of flaps. Even with 50 lbs in the baggage, Mike Seager
and I couldn't fully trim out the forces. So I decided during my
transition training that 20 degrees would be my setting and it worked
perfect.
I was definitely fast on my approach but I had plenty of runway to bleed
off speed. I planned on aiming for 1/3 down the runway and a couple
extra knots over 76. 76 (90 mph) was the approach speed Mike Seager
teaches you. My brother has some great shots of the landing sequence.
I'll just include a few.
Once the smoke came off that first wheel it was time to relax and
celebrate.
Now I need to fly off another 24 hours and then another 25 of rides but
that is the fun part.
I would definitely recommend some transition training for your first
flight. When I initially called for insurance they quoted me 10 hours of
total RV time with one hour in an RV-10. They apparently are now
requiring 10 hours of RV-10 time! I have argued with them that this is
going to be impossible for the whole RV-10 community to get but that is
what they said. They allowed my training to count but start calling your
insurance now and check on that.
Also, having a chase plane was nice to relieve stress and to keep an eye
on the outside of the plane.
Scott Schmidt
Product Manager
1260 South 1600 West
Orem, UT 84058
Cell 801-319-3094
Work 801-235-9001
Fax 801-235-9141
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Just for some data points can you share the following info:
1) What is the current engine config.
2) What is the current expected HP.
3) When did you order, when were you supposed to receive it, when are
you know told you will receive it.
4) Are you anticipating any major challenges with the install.
5) When are they expecting to have the James Cowl ready.
I haven't been keeping track since I went with my Barrett engine so I
don't know the status and there was nothing on display at Airventure.
Items 1, 2, & 3, above were directly related to my decision to go with a
Lyc and I'm curious on if they are still shifting. I also think they
are important things for prospects to know until there are a few out
there for hard data.
I used to live and work in the Chicagoland area and would love to drop
in some time after you get the engine and see how it goes.
Thanks,
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve Mills
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:34 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Steve Mills" <millstees@ameritech.net>
Michael,
I am building an RV-10 with the H-6 Subaru, and will be receiving my
engine in the same batch as Dan Lloyd.
Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The real issue here is whether or not you really need a brand new
engine. if you fly say 100 hours per annum it takes you 20 years to
reach the 2000 hours TBO. Already there engines that are specified as
2000hours or 12 years what ever comes first.
There ought to be 540's about that suffer from the crank issue and have
been set aside or otherwise. Try these engines and buy the crankkit from
Lycoming for qualified engines for $2000, it comes with all hardware and
gaskets. This will give you in effect a 0 hour bottom end, then purchase
a set of overhauled studs if the valves are good and built them onto
your overhauled studs and you'll have an engine as good as new for a lot
less and a bit of elbow grease.
The scenario above can be achieved for core value or even lower maybe
plus $5000.
Marcel
Message 38
| 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 |
|
Absolutely beautiful ship! Congrats and we all look forward to your
videos and other write-ups now that you aren't slaving away on it.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:41 AM
Subject: RV10-List: First Flight
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=11795
Here is a little write up from my first flight I just posted if any of
you are interested.
Thanks John and everyone else for the congratulations. Can't wait for
more of you to finish. Looks like I was #55.
It's amazing there are already 55 of these flying. Now if the weather
here in Salt Lake would clear I could fly some hours off.
Scott Schmidt
Message 39
| 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: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Long post, so if you do not like to read hit delete!!
First point I would like to stress to Tim, is that I have never claimed
to be the "average guy", below average or above average, but never
average "grin"
I am steadily making progress. I have the interior from Abby and it sure
looks outstanding. Anyone on the fence with Flightline, I can not say
enough about her and her work. I had the front and rear seats done in
about 10 minutes, and placed the panels for trial fit in 5 minutes or
so. It actually looked like a completed airplane, then I had to take it
all back out and get a reality check!
I have finalized the panel with Steinair, and their electrician Doug, I
can not say enough of these guys, they have been great to work with, and
the guidance they have offered has been invaluable. Doug has talked
directly with Eggenfellner, and is doing the panel for myself and
another RV9 builder, so he is getting some great experience in designing
the Panel/Electrical systems for the Egg package.
I have installed my fuel system, up to the firewall, just waiting for
the engine for final placement of the Andair firewall pass through
filter. I took apart the dual fuel pumps and inlet filters that
Eggenfellner distributes to us, and I mounted the redundant fuel pumps,
in the stock positions for the Lyco install. I already had the tanks
plumbed for the return line, so it is also sitting at the firewall
waiting for final placement.
The cool thing behind the heater package from Jan is that the inlet
lines match up with the holes for the scat heat tubes for the standard
install, so I just had to make a mount for the heater, and cover plates
to surround the copper tubing for firewall pass through. I have the
three position heater switch ready to be mounted on the panel. In
addition, I used the standard Vans heating duct for distribution.
So to date, the only significant mods I have made to accommodate the
Firewall Forward Package from Eggenfellner are a duplex fuel valve, a
return line, and a mounting bracket for the heater pass through.
I have been in communication with Jan and we are still on track for a
Dec '06 delivery date. I am visiting the factory over Thanksgiving and
will get to see my engine, I hope to also see the prop then. I have
ordered the 4 blade that was made custom for them. I have talked with
the prop controller manufacturer and everything is steadily making
progress there as well. I have also ordered the James cowl option to go
with the engine, so it should be a relatively simple install, as they
have prefabricated the inlets to match. I will still need to do the
cowling attach and finish, but from what I have heard regarding the
James cowl and other RV products they have been allot better than Vans
standard, but time will tell.
>From what I know of the other Eggenfellner FWF RV packages, the install
time is shorter because so much of the prep work is done. This is not to
say it is all done, as there is work still to be completed by the
builder. But it is no where near the 2000 hours the other post stated.
It is not plug and play, but pretty close in my opinion. I fully expect
it to be equal time or slightly less than installing a standard lycoming
FWF. I do expect to take more time after first flight to tweak cooling
and cowl exits, but the Lyco guys are also playing with that.
>From reports of other builders of other RV models, I expect to have the
engine mounted and running, less than a week after I get it. Allot of
things need to come together to make that happen, but I expect it will.
The nice thing about the Eggenfellner package is that I can run it
without the prop, so I can sit in the airplane and not have to make the
noise on my own...
Once I take delivery of the engine and have it up and running, or
anytime for that matter, I would welcome anyone to stop by for a project
visit. I am out of 4G1 in NWPA. I can provide transportation, and have a
guest room and food for those that would need an overnight.
Lust let me know
Dan
40269
RV10E (N289DT)
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:11 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
<rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Speaking of the Subie and Dan, how goes it with that engine? You
keeping a log anywhere on the experience with it. I for one am very
anxious to find out how it works out, even if Jan and co think I'm
against it for asking straight questions. I at least trust Dan to give
us the straight talk on it. Anyone else out there making any progress
with the Subie or other conversions?
On another note, Eci will hopefully have their clone ready sometime
next year (was supposed to be this year). I haven't checked with them
in quite a while but they expected the cost to be "considerably" less
than a new or "X" Lyc 540. We shall see.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Reading the previous post to which Jesse replied, I guess I think part
of the issue with the engine purchase choice that I don't see the total
logic in is that a lycoming is
"way too expensive for the average builder". 2 points.
First, so far the "Average RV-10 builder" has put in a Lycoming IO-540
into their plane. (nothing against you Dan...
Mr. Soobie man. ;) )
Next, I think that many, but not all (yeah yeah yeah, not you Mr. Bob K
with your engine that keeps you out of mac-n-cheese during the build)
alternative engines will be found to eventually cost just as much to
install, with all the mods you'll have to live through doing.
Then finally, I'd suggest that if someone truly thinks that a Lyc. is
outside of the "average" builders budget, then to me that's just
throwing up a huge red flag that maybe budget-wise the person got in
over their head with the RV-10 project.
So far I'm guessing that the *average* price of the finished and flying
RV-10's is actually OVER the $150K mark. The RV-10 kit isn't really
something I would see the "average"
person building...I'd think that most of us are a bit above average if
we can consider building an RV-10. The average person where I live,
lives in a family with about a 40-45K/year family income...certainly not
something that
will allow them to build an RV-10 in most cases. I feel this
3rd point is an important one because people really need to know what
they're getting into when they start the kit, and it is truly not
something everyone can or should try to afford.
Looking at the homebuilt market as a whole, I'd say the "average
builder" would be looking more towards buying an
RV-9 kit or maybe even less, from a cost perspective. The RV-10 will
never be built...dare I say never EVER be built, for costs
similar to planes like RV-9's. One good comment I saw this
week was to plan for at least $20-30K more than you expect...
or was it 20-30%. I can say that until I actually had every avionics
item, paint, interior, and other item figured out and priced (maybe just
under 1 year from completion of the kit) I had steadily been finding
these unexpected things and didn't have a predictable total...and it was
probably $40-50K beyond what I Initially figured my minimum build cost
could be...and $30-40 above my initial *expected* build cost. But, to
get what you want you sometimes have to adjust your
goals accordingly. Despite what you see invested in my panel,
my total cost is probably not actually that far out of whack from what
an "average" RV-10 will cost...for many reasons.
My guess is that a recently starting build may very well end up spending
within $10,000 to build an "average" RV-10.
But, averages are built on bell curves....so far most of the completed
RV-10's are probably very near center of the curve for what you'll see
when there are 100 or 200 of them flying.
Lyc's are a big hunk of cash, no doubt, but in the overall scheme of
things, you're not going to save huge percentages of the total cost by
doing anything different. (Except for you Bob K. ;) )
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Message 40
| 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 |
|
If they aren't targeting the RV market with the 540-X, they really
have their heads up their rear-ends! Considering the RV-10 is probably
the single biggest market for the Lyc 540-X with over 600 kit's out
there in 3 years, they should be kissing our butts making sure someone
doesn't come out with an alternative. But alas, they would rather stick
all of us with the cost of their manufacturing defects of the past and
drive us to find other solutions.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GRANSCOTT@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Our EAA group will be touring the Lycoming factory next week and I can
bring up the subject of experimentals for RV 10's if you like...but I'm
sure they are not really targeting the RV market rather assuming that we
will all just jump on the bandwagon.
Patrick Scott
EAA 240 Prez
Message 41
| 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>
Kelly, there are options w/ AeroSport or BPA/Mattituck or the other
'authorized Lyc builders' I believe that Tim's engine was and Overhauled
engine from Aerosport. By overhauled I think the only parts not new were
the case and the crank. Another option (the one I'm using w/ BPA) is the
Lyc 'experimental kit', where Lyc shipped all New parts to the builder
(my understanding is that these are the same parts as the certified
engine) and the builder assembles the engine and puts their name plate
(experimental) on it. Going this route still provides savings over the
Factory New Lycoming price. Additionally, with one of the kit builders,
you are able to have your engine 'blueprinted' and somewhat customized
(as John Cox would say 'hot rodded') like Allen outlined in his earlier
post.
Deems Davis # 406
/Finishing
http://deemsrv10.com/
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
>
> I somehow thought that a number of builders were going with AeroSport
> or BPA or similar sourced overhauled Lyc. engine, with savings in the
> 5-10K range over a new Lyc from Vans. Or overhauling their own engine.
> Am I wrong or is there good reason to go with the factory new engine?
> I see any engine with crank made after 1996 as a minus, as most have
> AD, or have been replaced with new version, about little is known
> other than Lyc somehow changed specs, because the 1996 specs caused
> the original problem(or their forger, who knows). All we really know
> is that the older cranks are very proven.
>
> On 10/17/06, GRANSCOTT@aol.com <GRANSCOTT@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 10/17/2006 11:08:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> BPA@bpaengines.com writes:
>> Add to this the cost of having organized labor, and you quickly add
>> 30% to
>> your overhead.
>>
>> Allan,
>>
>> I guess that the point that many of the kit builders don't understand
>> is the
>> benefits and union rates the workers receive!!! Please before I get the
>> anti union comments...I'm pro union and if the union can provide great
>> employees and be competitive I'm in their corner. Either way, Lycoming
>> makes a good reliable engine and it seems to be the engine of choice for
>> many Van's builders.
>>
>> Patrick
>
>
Message 42
| 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 can't wait to get the pants on. They are all fitted but I still need
to paint them.
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: First Flight
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez"
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
That thing looks so good you don't even recognize the lack of gear
fairings
and wheel pants.
Beautiful job!
John G. 409
Do not archive.
>From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: First Flight
>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:23:24 -0500
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
>Very Awesome, Scott, great story! You should post the text here, with
>one photo, so nobody misses the good stuff. I've said it to a couple
>people already, but your paint looks the prettiest of any I've seen.
>You did a fantastic job, and it's great to have you as a new member
>in the FLYING RV-10 club! One more guy to attend the future RV-10
>North America fly-in!
>
>PS: congrats on getting the 25 hour flyoff....your DAR knew what he was
>doing.
>
>Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>do not archive
>
>
>Scott Schmidt wrote:
>>http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=11795
>>
>>
>>
>>Here is a little write up from my first flight I just posted if any of
you
>>are interested.
>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks John and everyone else for the congratulations. Can't wait for
>>more of you to finish. Looks like I was #55.
>>
>>It's amazing there are already 55 of these flying. Now if the weather
here
>>in Salt Lake would clear I could fly some hours off.
>>
>>
>>
>>Scott Schmidt
>>
>>
>
>
Message 43
| 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: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
While I have no hard facts around this, I have also heard that some
MIDO's will not allow a previously certified engine, that has had time
in an experimental, to be placed into certified service again. Makes no
sense to me but it is the FAA after all. This would make the idea of
paying extra for a certified engine a bit of a waste. Then again you
could probably switch regions and get a completely different
interpretation anyway. :-) I however did go with a brand new
Experimental Lyc "kit" engine. Cores are getting a little scarce and I
didn't feel like running into a bunch of AD's down the road, not that a
"new" engine won't have that happen.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
I somehow thought that a number of builders were going with AeroSport or
BPA or similar sourced overhauled Lyc. engine, with savings in the 5-10K
range over a new Lyc from Vans. Or overhauling their own engine.
Am I wrong or is there good reason to go with the factory new engine?
I see any engine with crank made after 1996 as a minus, as most have AD,
or have been replaced with new version, about little is known other than
Lyc somehow changed specs, because the 1996 specs caused the original
problem(or their forger, who knows). All we really know is that the
older cranks are very proven.
On 10/17/06, GRANSCOTT@aol.com <GRANSCOTT@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 10/17/2006 11:08:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> BPA@bpaengines.com writes:
> Add to this the cost of having organized labor, and you quickly add
> 30% to your overhead.
>
> Allan,
>
> I guess that the point that many of the kit builders don't understand
> is the benefits and union rates the workers receive!!! Please before
> I get the anti union comments...I'm pro union and if the union can
> provide great employees and be competitive I'm in their corner.
> Either way, Lycoming makes a good reliable engine and it seems to be
> the engine of choice for many Van's builders.
>
> Patrick
Message 44
| 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>
Daniel,
Thanks for your long, informative post.
I am very much interested in every available engine option out there and
Eggenfellner has my $250 refundable deposits. Notice I say (deposits)
Please let us other breed know how it is going. My delivery isn't scheduled
until Dec '07 due to summertime soaring commitments. Without an engine, it
takes longer to get where your going.
I would like to see a pic of your dual battery tray if you could send one or
direct me to one.
JOhn G. 409
DO Not Archive
>From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:39:30 -0400
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
>
>Long post, so if you do not like to read hit delete!!
>
>First point I would like to stress to Tim, is that I have never claimed
>to be the "average guy", below average or above average, but never
>average "grin"
>I am steadily making progress. I have the interior from Abby and it sure
>looks outstanding. Anyone on the fence with Flightline, I can not say
>enough about her and her work. I had the front and rear seats done in
>about 10 minutes, and placed the panels for trial fit in 5 minutes or
>so. It actually looked like a completed airplane, then I had to take it
>all back out and get a reality check!
>I have finalized the panel with Steinair, and their electrician Doug, I
>can not say enough of these guys, they have been great to work with, and
>the guidance they have offered has been invaluable. Doug has talked
>directly with Eggenfellner, and is doing the panel for myself and
>another RV9 builder, so he is getting some great experience in designing
>the Panel/Electrical systems for the Egg package.
>I have installed my fuel system, up to the firewall, just waiting for
>the engine for final placement of the Andair firewall pass through
>filter. I took apart the dual fuel pumps and inlet filters that
>Eggenfellner distributes to us, and I mounted the redundant fuel pumps,
>in the stock positions for the Lyco install. I already had the tanks
>plumbed for the return line, so it is also sitting at the firewall
>waiting for final placement.
>The cool thing behind the heater package from Jan is that the inlet
>lines match up with the holes for the scat heat tubes for the standard
>install, so I just had to make a mount for the heater, and cover plates
>to surround the copper tubing for firewall pass through. I have the
>three position heater switch ready to be mounted on the panel. In
>addition, I used the standard Vans heating duct for distribution.
>So to date, the only significant mods I have made to accommodate the
>Firewall Forward Package from Eggenfellner are a duplex fuel valve, a
>return line, and a mounting bracket for the heater pass through.
>I have been in communication with Jan and we are still on track for a
>Dec '06 delivery date. I am visiting the factory over Thanksgiving and
>will get to see my engine, I hope to also see the prop then. I have
>ordered the 4 blade that was made custom for them. I have talked with
>the prop controller manufacturer and everything is steadily making
>progress there as well. I have also ordered the James cowl option to go
>with the engine, so it should be a relatively simple install, as they
>have prefabricated the inlets to match. I will still need to do the
>cowling attach and finish, but from what I have heard regarding the
>James cowl and other RV products they have been allot better than Vans
>standard, but time will tell.
> >From what I know of the other Eggenfellner FWF RV packages, the install
>time is shorter because so much of the prep work is done. This is not to
>say it is all done, as there is work still to be completed by the
>builder. But it is no where near the 2000 hours the other post stated.
>It is not plug and play, but pretty close in my opinion. I fully expect
>it to be equal time or slightly less than installing a standard lycoming
>FWF. I do expect to take more time after first flight to tweak cooling
>and cowl exits, but the Lyco guys are also playing with that.
> >From reports of other builders of other RV models, I expect to have the
>engine mounted and running, less than a week after I get it. Allot of
>things need to come together to make that happen, but I expect it will.
>The nice thing about the Eggenfellner package is that I can run it
>without the prop, so I can sit in the airplane and not have to make the
>noise on my own...
>
>Once I take delivery of the engine and have it up and running, or
>anytime for that matter, I would welcome anyone to stop by for a project
>visit. I am out of 4G1 in NWPA. I can provide transportation, and have a
>guest room and food for those that would need an overnight.
>Lust let me know
>Dan
>
>40269
>RV10E (N289DT)
>Do not archive
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
>(Michael Sausen)
>Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:11 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
><rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> Speaking of the Subie and Dan, how goes it with that engine? You
>keeping a log anywhere on the experience with it. I for one am very
>anxious to find out how it works out, even if Jan and co think I'm
>against it for asking straight questions. I at least trust Dan to give
>us the straight talk on it. Anyone else out there making any progress
>with the Subie or other conversions?
>
> On another note, Eci will hopefully have their clone ready sometime
>next year (was supposed to be this year). I haven't checked with them
>in quite a while but they expected the cost to be "considerably" less
>than a new or "X" Lyc 540. We shall see.
>
>Michael
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
>Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:40 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
>Reading the previous post to which Jesse replied, I guess I think part
>of the issue with the engine purchase choice that I don't see the total
>logic in is that a lycoming is
>"way too expensive for the average builder". 2 points.
>
>First, so far the "Average RV-10 builder" has put in a Lycoming IO-540
>into their plane. (nothing against you Dan...
>Mr. Soobie man. ;) )
>
>Next, I think that many, but not all (yeah yeah yeah, not you Mr. Bob K
>with your engine that keeps you out of mac-n-cheese during the build)
>alternative engines will be found to eventually cost just as much to
>install, with all the mods you'll have to live through doing.
>
>Then finally, I'd suggest that if someone truly thinks that a Lyc. is
>outside of the "average" builders budget, then to me that's just
>throwing up a huge red flag that maybe budget-wise the person got in
>over their head with the RV-10 project.
>So far I'm guessing that the *average* price of the finished and flying
>RV-10's is actually OVER the $150K mark. The RV-10 kit isn't really
>something I would see the "average"
>person building...I'd think that most of us are a bit above average if
>we can consider building an RV-10. The average person where I live,
>lives in a family with about a 40-45K/year family income...certainly not
>something that
>will allow them to build an RV-10 in most cases. I feel this
>3rd point is an important one because people really need to know what
>they're getting into when they start the kit, and it is truly not
>something everyone can or should try to afford.
>Looking at the homebuilt market as a whole, I'd say the "average
>builder" would be looking more towards buying an
>RV-9 kit or maybe even less, from a cost perspective. The RV-10 will
>never be built...dare I say never EVER be built, for costs
>similar to planes like RV-9's. One good comment I saw this
>week was to plan for at least $20-30K more than you expect...
>or was it 20-30%. I can say that until I actually had every avionics
>item, paint, interior, and other item figured out and priced (maybe just
>under 1 year from completion of the kit) I had steadily been finding
>these unexpected things and didn't have a predictable total...and it was
>probably $40-50K beyond what I Initially figured my minimum build cost
>could be...and $30-40 above my initial *expected* build cost. But, to
>get what you want you sometimes have to adjust your
>goals accordingly. Despite what you see invested in my panel,
>my total cost is probably not actually that far out of whack from what
>an "average" RV-10 will cost...for many reasons.
>My guess is that a recently starting build may very well end up spending
>within $10,000 to build an "average" RV-10.
>But, averages are built on bell curves....so far most of the completed
>RV-10's are probably very near center of the curve for what you'll see
>when there are 100 or 200 of them flying.
>
>Lyc's are a big hunk of cash, no doubt, but in the overall scheme of
>things, you're not going to save huge percentages of the total cost by
>doing anything different. (Except for you Bob K. ;) )
>
>Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>do not archive
>
>
Message 45
| 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: "BPA" <BPA@BPAENGINES.COM>
Cores are REALLY scarce, and demand premium price to purchase. The cores
that are available were bottom of the barrel engine cores as little as 5
years ago. Every part that rejects on an engine core adds to the cost of
an overhaul somewhere, be it your engine or the engine the parts came
from to build yours, or new. This IMHO is the reason for the IO-540 kit
engine. Lycoming quickly acknowledged the drying up of the 0/IO-540
engine core market and delivered the kit option first. No doubt ECI and
Superior are not too far behind. Sure, this is good news for the end
user as it spurs competition as do the alternate engine(s). This is a
GREAT situation for GA to be in if looking at it from a purely economic
standpoint.
Allen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:24 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
<rvbuilder@sausen.net>
While I have no hard facts around this, I have also heard that some
MIDO's will not allow a previously certified engine, that has had time
in an experimental, to be placed into certified service again. Makes no
sense to me but it is the FAA after all. This would make the idea of
paying extra for a certified engine a bit of a waste. Then again you
could probably switch regions and get a completely different
interpretation anyway. :-) I however did go with a brand new
Experimental Lyc "kit" engine. Cores are getting a little scarce and I
didn't feel like running into a bunch of AD's down the road, not that a
"new" engine won't have that happen.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
I somehow thought that a number of builders were going with AeroSport or
BPA or similar sourced overhauled Lyc. engine, with savings in the 5-10K
range over a new Lyc from Vans. Or overhauling their own engine.
Am I wrong or is there good reason to go with the factory new engine?
I see any engine with crank made after 1996 as a minus, as most have AD,
or have been replaced with new version, about little is known other than
Lyc somehow changed specs, because the 1996 specs caused the original
problem(or their forger, who knows). All we really know is that the
older cranks are very proven.
On 10/17/06, GRANSCOTT@aol.com <GRANSCOTT@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 10/17/2006 11:08:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> BPA@bpaengines.com writes:
> Add to this the cost of having organized labor, and you quickly add
> 30% to your overhead.
>
> Allan,
>
> I guess that the point that many of the kit builders don't understand
> is the benefits and union rates the workers receive!!! Please before
> I get the anti union comments...I'm pro union and if the union can
> provide great employees and be competitive I'm in their corner.
> Either way, Lycoming makes a good reliable engine and it seems to be
> the engine of choice for many Van's builders.
>
> Patrick
Message 46
| 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>
Where the engine has been used in the past has no relevance to the
FAA. If it has a valid data plate, and all airworthy parts, it is a
certified engine. Especially if you have logbooks to show it has had a
100 hour inspection recently, or freshly overhauled. If you have the
piece with the data plate...usually sump on Lycs, any A&P can build
the rest of the engine out of new PMA parts or Lyc parts, and sign it
off as a freshly overhauled certified engine.
KM
A&P/IA
On 10/17/06, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <rvbuilder@sausen.net> wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> While I have no hard facts around this, I have also heard that some
> MIDO's will not allow a previously certified engine, that has had time
> in an experimental, to be placed into certified service again. Makes no
> sense to me but it is the FAA after all. This would make the idea of
> paying extra for a certified engine a bit of a waste. Then again you
> could probably switch regions and get a completely different
> interpretation anyway. :-) I however did go with a brand new
> Experimental Lyc "kit" engine. Cores are getting a little scarce and I
> didn't feel like running into a bunch of AD's down the road, not that a
> "new" engine won't have that happen.
>
> Michael Sausen
> -10 #352 Fuselage
Message 47
| 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: First Flight |
--> RV10-List message posted by: kilopapa@antelecom.net
Nice job and write up. Looks real nice. Who did you get
insurance through?
Kevin
40494
do not archive
Message 48
| 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: "BPA" <BPA@BPAENGINES.COM>
Agreed Kelly. The key thing to do is record ALL AND ANY maintenance done
to the engine, in the appropriate fashion, in the log book. And it will
have to be done to conformed status. In other words, CYA and there
should be no issue. But, the maintenance will have to be done by a
person with a powerplant rating in order to return the engine to
certified category. This goes against one of the reasons in building an
airplane anyway which is the freedom to perform your own maintenance,
right?
Allen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
Where the engine has been used in the past has no relevance to the
FAA. If it has a valid data plate, and all airworthy parts, it is a
certified engine. Especially if you have logbooks to show it has had a
100 hour inspection recently, or freshly overhauled. If you have the
piece with the data plate...usually sump on Lycs, any A&P can build
the rest of the engine out of new PMA parts or Lyc parts, and sign it
off as a freshly overhauled certified engine.
KM
A&P/IA
On 10/17/06, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <rvbuilder@sausen.net> wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
<rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> While I have no hard facts around this, I have also heard that some
> MIDO's will not allow a previously certified engine, that has had time
> in an experimental, to be placed into certified service again. Makes
no
> sense to me but it is the FAA after all. This would make the idea of
> paying extra for a certified engine a bit of a waste. Then again you
> could probably switch regions and get a completely different
> interpretation anyway. :-) I however did go with a brand new
> Experimental Lyc "kit" engine. Cores are getting a little scarce and
I
> didn't feel like running into a bunch of AD's down the road, not that
a
> "new" engine won't have that happen.
>
> Michael Sausen
> -10 #352 Fuselage
Message 49
| 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: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Preachin to the choir here. Like I said, I had heard it somewhere and
given the western region FISDO's dumb a$$ interpretation of airspace
lately anything is possible.
Michael
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
Where the engine has been used in the past has no relevance to the FAA.
If it has a valid data plate, and all airworthy parts, it is a certified
engine. Especially if you have logbooks to show it has had a 100 hour
inspection recently, or freshly overhauled. If you have the piece with
the data plate...usually sump on Lycs, any A&P can build the rest of the
engine out of new PMA parts or Lyc parts, and sign it off as a freshly
overhauled certified engine.
KM
A&P/IA
On 10/17/06, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <rvbuilder@sausen.net> wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
> --> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> While I have no hard facts around this, I have also heard that some
> MIDO's will not allow a previously certified engine, that has had time
> in an experimental, to be placed into certified service again. Makes
> no sense to me but it is the FAA after all. This would make the idea
> of paying extra for a certified engine a bit of a waste. Then again
> you could probably switch regions and get a completely different
> interpretation anyway. :-) I however did go with a brand new
> Experimental Lyc "kit" engine. Cores are getting a little scarce and
> I didn't feel like running into a bunch of AD's down the road, not
> that a "new" engine won't have that happen.
>
> Michael Sausen
> -10 #352 Fuselage
Message 50
| 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>
We're actually almost up to 650....believe it or not. It's truly
amazing.
Oh, and Dan, man, you're definitely not average....the average guy
ain't nearly as friendly as you. ;) Can't wait to see y'all
again.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> If they aren't targeting the RV market with the 540-X, they really
> have their heads up their rear-ends! Considering the RV-10 is probably
> the single biggest market for the Lyc 540-X with over 600 kit's out
> there in 3 years, they should be kissing our butts making sure someone
> doesn't come out with an alternative. But alas, they would rather stick
> all of us with the cost of their manufacturing defects of the past and
> drive us to find other solutions.
>
> Michael Sausen
> -10 #352 Fuselage
> do not archive
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *GRANSCOTT@aol.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:30 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
> Our EAA group will be touring the Lycoming factory next week and I can
> bring up the subject of experimentals for RV 10's if you like...but I'm
> sure they are not really targeting the RV market rather assuming that we
> will all just jump on the bandwagon.
>
> Patrick Scott
> EAA 240 Prez
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 51
| 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: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "johngoodman" <johngoodman@earthlink.net>
Tim & Larry,
I've got my QB wings coming and I've been looking at your wing stands. I only have
one question before I start duplicating your designs:
Would it be better to create a wing stand/cradle for each wing? I noticed in one
of the photos that one wing was stored overhead so work could be done on the
other wing. I have the floor space and 2x4s are cheap in this business.
John
--------
#40572 Empennage - starting Elevators!
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68621#68621
Message 52
| 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 <kellym@aviating.com>
Is #2 demo aircraft an anemic performer? Is only 800-1000fpm an anemic
climb? There are plenty of certified planes that don't do as well at
full gross, sporting "only" 200 hp, or less. From the Comanche 180,
Mooney M20C 180hp, to the Mooney 201 that goes almost as fast as a -10
on less gas and "only" 200 hp. I don't think it is considered anemic.
Has a gross wt of 2740 lbs for most versions, with a few that were
increased to 2900. Not everyone needs to go up at 1500ft a minute. The
201 has service ceiling around 18000 ft, which most consider adequate
for a non-turbo aircraft. No, it won't handle the short fields a -10
will, but as others have said, that depends entirely on your mission
requirements. Will the IO-540 produce 150hp on under 11gph? I kind of
doubt it. The IO-360 definitely will and does every day. Will the -10 do
165kts on that hp? At gross wt?
John W. Cox 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 thats 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.
>
Message 53
| 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: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
IMHO I do not see any reason for 2 stands with QB wings. All of the top
skins are already riveted in place, so you have little need to access
that side. The only time I needed to access the top side was to attach
the wing tips. To do that I just shifted the wings and was able to
complete those steps.
Larry Rosen
#356
johngoodman wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "johngoodman" <johngoodman@earthlink.net>
>
> Tim & Larry,
> I've got my QB wings coming and I've been looking at your wing stands. I only
have one question before I start duplicating your designs:
>
> Would it be better to create a wing stand/cradle for each wing? I noticed in
one of the photos that one wing was stored overhead so work could be done on the
other wing. I have the floor space and 2x4s are cheap in this business.
> John
>
> --------
> #40572 Empennage - starting Elevators!
> N711JG reserved
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68621#68621
>
>
>
Message 54
| 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: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Perhaps it would be easier at times to have them separate, but
not too often. It's kind of nice having them together
because the base of the stand is automatically wide enough to
help keep it from tipping over. If you made a stand for one,
you'd still need a wide base. If you have lots of space though,
just build a really sturdy pair of carts if you wish. Much
of the time though, when you want to work on the wings, it'll
mean pulling them out and laying them flat on the table.
When you load them into the cradle, you'll usually want to leave
the top sides to the middle. The cart I made doesn't care which
wing goes on which side.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
johngoodman wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "johngoodman"
> <johngoodman@earthlink.net>
>
> Tim & Larry, I've got my QB wings coming and I've been looking at
> your wing stands. I only have one question before I start duplicating
> your designs:
>
> Would it be better to create a wing stand/cradle for each wing? I
> noticed in one of the photos that one wing was stored overhead so
> work could be done on the other wing. I have the floor space and 2x4s
> are cheap in this business. John
>
> -------- #40572 Empennage - starting Elevators! N711JG reserved
>
>
>
Message 55
| 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: | Latest Trip update for LOE + head to head, MT vs Hartzell |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Hey folks, I quick threw together my write up from last week's trip.
3000+ miles from Wisconsin to New Mexico to Vegas to El Paso and home.
Attended the LOE Fly-in, and had a blast with lots of other people
sold out to the RV lifestyle. Had a chance to fly Vic's RV-10
and let him fly mine, got some absolutely professional RV-10 formation
photos (not available yet for viewing until some decisions are made),
but I'll update the site and let you know when you can see them.
Got to fly the MT prop head to head with the Hartzell, and compare
planes. This one is pretty darn long, possibly boring to some,
but you may find some gems.
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/flights/20061015/index.html
Man I can't wait to show you these formation shots and the larger
sized ones of the planes though. All you get right now are a
couple of little thumbnails....sorry. ;)
--
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Message 56
| 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: | Stainless steel heat selector boxes |
hey all -
just thought i'd give a pirep about the stainless heat selector boxes
that you can find here:
http://www.epm-avcorp.com/index.html
they're basically dimensionally identical to the aluminum ones from vans
- a direct bolt on replacement. they seem well made, and should do what
they're advertised to do. they're a bit heavier than the aluminum ones
- i weighed them on my digital scale (the one i use to mix proseal) and
here's the results:
aluminum 3.5 oz
stainless 5.7 oz
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
Message 57
| 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 ended up with Falcon. I tried to use Scott Skymith as well but was
having trouble with the dual. They wanted 15 hours of dual in an RV-10
at first but then wanted 10 hours. Insurance is the biggest concern I
would have unless you don't want full hull insurance. Insurance is in
such a state of flux right now. I can't believe the difference in
quotes and requirements just over the past 3 years. It must be all the
Cirrus type aircraft out there and just the reemergence of GA aircraft.
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
kilopapa@antelecom.net
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: First Flight
--> RV10-List message posted by: kilopapa@antelecom.net
Nice job and write up. Looks real nice. Who did you get
insurance through?
Kevin
40494
do not archive
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! --
|