Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:25 AM - Re: Latest Trip update for LOE + head to head, MT vs Hartzell (Russell Daves)
2. 03:50 AM - Re: Elevator skin repair suggestionsElevator skin repair suggestionsElevator skin repair suggestions (Link McGarity)
3. 04:20 AM - Re: Latest Trip update for LOE + head to head, MT vs Hartzell (Tim Olson)
4. 05:44 AM - Re: First flight write up. (Wayne Edgerton)
5. 05:47 AM - Front Axle Wear Issue (zackrv8)
6. 06:23 AM - Re: Re: engines (Jesse Saint)
7. 06:24 AM - How high? (Jesse Saint)
8. 06:37 AM - Re: Front Axle Wear Issue (Tim Olson)
9. 07:01 AM - Re: How high? (Tim Olson)
10. 07:40 AM - Re: How high? (Jesse Saint)
11. 08:13 AM - Re: How high? And what RPM? (LessDragProd@aol.com)
12. 08:49 AM - Re: Re: engines (John W. Cox)
13. 09:22 AM - Re: Latest Trip update for LOE + head to head, MT vs Hartzell (Phillips, Jack)
14. 09:39 AM - Re: 296 (John Ackerman)
15. 09:45 AM - Re: Re: engines (James K Hovis)
16. 10:18 AM - Re: Re: engines (John Ackerman)
17. 10:46 AM - Re: Re: engines (Jesse Saint)
18. 01:02 PM - Re: How high? (Rob Kermanj)
19. 01:38 PM - Sanchem (arthurww)
20. 02:00 PM - Re: How high? (Jesse Saint)
21. 02:24 PM - Re: Re: engines (Nikolaos Napoli)
22. 04:07 PM - Re: Re: engines (jdalton77)
23. 04:36 PM - Hot rodding (Paul Walter)
24. 04:56 PM - Re: Latest Trip update for LOE + head to head, MT vs Hartzell (Russell Daves)
25. 05:07 PM - Vne and flutter (was engines) (McGANN, Ron)
26. 05:27 PM - Re: First flight write up. (Scott Schmidt)
27. 05:56 PM - Re: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining (johngoodman)
28. 06:03 PM - Re: Hot rodding (JOHN STARN)
29. 06:26 PM - Re: Re: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining (Larry Rosen)
30. 06:50 PM - Re: Vne and flutter (was engines) (Dsyvert@AOL.COM)
31. 06:52 PM - Nose Gear Building Tip (zackrv8)
32. 07:18 PM - Re: Re: engines (John W. Cox)
33. 07:18 PM - Re: Nose Gear Building Tip ()
34. 07:31 PM - Re: Hot rodding (John W. Cox)
35. 07:36 PM - Re: First flight write up. (John W. Cox)
36. 07:48 PM - Re: Nose Gear Building Tip (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
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: Latest Trip update for LOE + head to head, MT vs Hartzell |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Russell Daves" <dav1111@cox.net>
Great write up Tim!!!
Next time I want you to fly Right seat in N710RV and get your feedback as
well. Looking at the Weather Page you posted when you were just west of
Clovis, NM you could see the reason I went the south route to Midland before
turning back to Lubbock. It was really nasty on the direct route from LOE
to Lubbock.
See you next time,
Russ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:28 PM
Subject: RV10-List: 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 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Elevator skin repair suggestionsElevator skin repair suggestionsElevator |
skin repair suggestions
--> RV10-List message posted by: Link McGarity <wv4i@bellsouth.net>
Thank you. I was reluctant to bring up the fact that control surface
flutter characteristics change as a function of hinged weight, and the
location of that weight. This discussion also comes to mind when
considering adding adjustable trim to the rudder. I would get an opinion
from Van's tech folks/person, and go with that.
Link McGarity
#40622 elevator
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Latest Trip update for LOE + head to head, MT vs Hartzell |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I'd sure love to, and invite you to do the same! Yeah, that
pair of cells in the way to go direct LBB was not nice at
all when I was there. You did the right thing. What time did
you get out of there? I didn't see if it was earlier than me
or later. Either way, that weather wasn't great for anyone
traveling. I can't wait to hear you rave once you get your
XM receiver.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Russell Daves wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Russell Daves" <dav1111@cox.net>
>
> Great write up Tim!!!
>
> Next time I want you to fly Right seat in N710RV and get your feedback
> as well. Looking at the Weather Page you posted when you were just west
> of Clovis, NM you could see the reason I went the south route to Midland
> before turning back to Lubbock. It was really nasty on the direct route
> from LOE to Lubbock.
>
> See you next time,
>
> Russ
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:28 PM
> Subject: RV10-List: 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 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: First flight write up. |
Scott,
Congratulations on your first flight and for building such a beautiful
RV10. You certainly appear to have done a great job and your write up
was great.
I know I'm very anxious to be not to far behind you.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
do not archive
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: | Front Axle Wear Issue |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
Tim Olson,
I am installing my front axle today. I was wondering if you licked the problem
with the new aluminum spacers and axle that Vans sent you? Do we still need
a fix here?
Zack
--------
RV8 #80125
RV10 # 40512
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68697#68697
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
Kelly,
On my flight to and from OSH this year we averaged about 10.5gph in cruise
are around 165Kts TAS. I don't know how many HP we were producing, but I
thought that was somewhat a calculation of MAP, RPM and GPH. That said, I
would agree that the -10 outclimbs most other planes I have been in, and the
Cessnas I have experienced are pathetic in comparison, so a slower climb
would feel more "normal" rather than "anemic".
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> 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.
>
Do not archive.
--
--
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Since we are talking about power and altitude flying, I wanted to poll
those
flying and see how high you have flown. I see that Tim=92s flight was
planned
on Duat=92s software at 10,000. Do I hear 15, anybody got 15?
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
--
10/17/2006
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Front Axle Wear Issue |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I have yet to install the new aluminum ones. It's soon on my
list, but it may be a couple weeks yet. I think it'll work
if the spacings are set properly so the axle itself doesn't bottom
out on the forks. It may still be nice to do some slightly
different things, like use large washers on the fork end so
that it could never possibly wear, or add roll pins so the
spacers can't spin, but I'm betting they're worlds better
than what I started with.
See what you think after you try installing it. Be aware
that it might seem perfectly fine at first glance...I thought
mine was.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
zackrv8 wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
>
> Tim Olson,
>
> I am installing my front axle today. I was wondering if you licked
> the problem with the new aluminum spacers and axle that Vans sent
> you? Do we still need a fix here?
>
> Zack
>
> -------- RV8 #80125 RV10 # 40512
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I keep forgetting how to move that graph on the software to reflect
my filed altitude. I usually file between 8000 and 13,000.
The highest I've gone so far is 14,000, since I don't just normally
go out and do things to do them....I did it when needed to get
over the mountains while filing direct routes. It sure cruises nice
in that range. You may as well let your cat out of the bag that
you've been way up there.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jesse Saint wrote:
> Since we are talking about power and altitude flying, I wanted to poll
> those flying and see how high you have flown. I see that Tims flight
> was planned on Duats software at 10,000. Do I hear 15, anybody got 15?
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
I think just a hair over 20K is as high as N256H has been. It certainly
DOES NOT like to cruise up that high, but it loves as high as 18K. Usually
15K will get over the worst weather, or at least high enough to be able to
sneak between the build-ups. It is very economical up there.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: How high?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I keep forgetting how to move that graph on the software to reflect
my filed altitude. I usually file between 8000 and 13,000.
The highest I've gone so far is 14,000, since I don't just normally
go out and do things to do them....I did it when needed to get
over the mountains while filing direct routes. It sure cruises nice
in that range. You may as well let your cat out of the bag that
you've been way up there.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jesse Saint wrote:
> Since we are talking about power and altitude flying, I wanted to poll
> those flying and see how high you have flown. I see that Tims flight
> was planned on Duats software at 10,000. Do I hear 15, anybody got 15?
>
>
--
--
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: How high? And what RPM? |
What RPM do you use for cruise?
Van's Aircraft uses 2,500 RPM at 8,000' density altitude for their
performance testing. However, one RV-10 pilot noticed a 1 knot increase in airspeed
at 2300 RPM when compared to his airspeed at 2500 RPM.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
(805) 795-5377
Do Not Archive
In a message dated 10/18/2006 7:43:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jesse@itecusa.org writes:
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
I think just a hair over 20K is as high as N256H has been. It certainly
DOES NOT like to cruise up that high, but it loves as high as 18K. Usually
15K will get over the worst weather, or at least high enough to be able to
sneak between the build-ups. It is very economical up there.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Let me respond right here that the disgusting phrase "Hot Rodding" that
I have used in the past is a tongue in cheek mumble that VAN regularly
uses and for the benefit of Ken Scott who lurks on this list and tattles
on all who modify this great aircraft. I have a lot of respect for
Randy who built a "By the book, no deviation allowed" RV-10. However, I
encourage and support those who modify this great basic entry cruiser
aircraft into what it deserves to become. The most prolific and popular
4 place kit built aircraft on the planet. I am a proponent of
multi-screen glass efis, higher compression pistons, improved induction,
improved cooling, improved exhaust, improved cowling, improved braking,
improved aesthetics, improved graphics and improved composite work. The
phrase that builders would fall out of the sky or suffer catastrophic
control flutter by making such logical improvements was from the editor
of the RVator. I don't buy it, I have the same passion that VAN did
when he Hot Rodded the Playboy into his first RV.
I have 283 ideas (and growing) for improving this great design. Many of
those are being incorporated with aircraft builders willing to move off
the "plans only" construction concept. Don't get me wrong, I respect
those of you who do not deviate. I though, am waiting for a resolution
of the 51% rule before moving ahead with my plans for Builder Assist -
Commercially. I think that Tim, Scott and Deems are doing a great job
of growing the spirit of the Home Building Community on this post and on
their websites. It is with tremendous thrill and pride that I
acknowledge I am but a small part of this 650 kits sold, 55 kits flying
and lurker community. They just keep getting better and better. I wish
more was done at VANS to improve the quality, update the publication and
speed the boxing and shipping process. If Ken Krueger comes to our
dinner Friday, this will be a point worth sharing.
I am praying that Scott flies to Casa Grande next weekend so he can fly
home with Grand Champion - Copperstate. I will help reimburse him for
fuel if he does so. Ray, Scott and Ranae deserve it. The rest you need
to at least view their pictures. At 10 mega pixels he did not scrimp on
the quality. Not on his motorcycle, his hangar, his bicycle, his
partnership or that fabulous aircraft. Congrats again Ray for providing
Scott's continuity and to Ranae's patience.
Where is James McClow to share in all this excitement?
John #600
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> 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/
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: | Latest Trip update for LOE + head to head, MT vs Hartzell |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
Nice post, Tim. Keep 'em coming, to inspire those of us slogging
through the endless days of 3D (drilling, deburring and dimpling).
Jack Phillips
#40610
About ready to rivet the skins on the Horizontal Stabilizer
-----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 10:28 PM
Subject: RV10-List: 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 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: John Ackerman <johnag5b@cableone.net>
Yep!
J.A. Air Center
www.jaair.com.
Sorry about that - old habits, etc.
John
On Oct 15, 2006, at 5:16 PM, GRANSCOTT@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/15/06 7:36:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> johnag5b@cableone.net writes:
>> Try calling Joliet avionicsDo you mean JA and DPA?
>
> P
>
>
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 |
|
Flutter and dynamic divergence are REAL issues every airframe designer (and
for that matter, pilot) has to deal with especially so for
higher-performance aircraft. There are two ways to set Vne in FAR Part 23.
One, do ground vibration tests to find resonant frequencies (mainly shake
the crap out of it and see if anything falls off) of the airframe, then go
out and flight test to find its flutter point, then set the Vne at few per
cent below this speed. The other is to use the canned Vne minimum speed
formula based on wing loading. The canned formula is based on statistics
from certified aircraft that if you set Vne at this speed or below, you
won't encounter flutter. I suspect Van's took the conservative approach and
set Vne based on the canned formula. Now as Van points out, weight affects
flutter. Balance of control surfaces affect flutter (see Steve Whitman's
crash several years ago), and horsepower available affects flutter. Most
low-power spam-cans don't have the power to ever approach Vne except in
steep dives, while adding power means the top speed capable (that point
where the power available curve crosses the power required for level flight
curve) creeps ever closer to the flutter point. Now, don't get me wrong, if
someone want to drop in a 300hp engine into an RV, they are more than
welcome to do it. However, they should get a professional test pilot to
verify the Vne and flutter point for the configuration or get training on
how to react when flutter happens (the time from flutter onset to complete
divergence can be REAL small). Understanding the full ramifications of
modifications to the original design and testing for it may save someone's
life in the end.
JKH
On 10/18/06, John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>
> Let me respond right here that the disgusting phrase "Hot Rodding" that
> I have used in the past is a tongue in cheek mumble that VAN regularly
> uses and for the benefit of Ken Scott who lurks on this list and tattles
> on all who modify this great aircraft. I have a lot of respect for
> Randy who built a "By the book, no deviation allowed" RV-10. However, I
> encourage and support those who modify this great basic entry cruiser
> aircraft into what it deserves to become. The most prolific and popular
> 4 place kit built aircraft on the planet. I am a proponent of
> multi-screen glass efis, higher compression pistons, improved induction,
> improved cooling, improved exhaust, improved cowling, improved braking,
> improved aesthetics, improved graphics and improved composite work. The
> phrase that builders would fall out of the sky or suffer catastrophic
> control flutter by making such logical improvements was from the editor
> of the RVator. I don't buy it, I have the same passion that VAN did
> when he Hot Rodded the Playboy into his first RV.
>
> I have 283 ideas (and growing) for improving this great design. Many of
> those are being incorporated with aircraft builders willing to move off
> the "plans only" construction concept. Don't get me wrong, I respect
> those of you who do not deviate. I though, am waiting for a resolution
> of the 51% rule before moving ahead with my plans for Builder Assist -
> Commercially. I think that Tim, Scott and Deems are doing a great job
> of growing the spirit of the Home Building Community on this post and on
> their websites. It is with tremendous thrill and pride that I
> acknowledge I am but a small part of this 650 kits sold, 55 kits flying
> and lurker community. They just keep getting better and better. I wish
> more was done at VANS to improve the quality, update the publication and
> speed the boxing and shipping process. If Ken Krueger comes to our
> dinner Friday, this will be a point worth sharing.
>
> I am praying that Scott flies to Casa Grande next weekend so he can fly
> home with Grand Champion - Copperstate. I will help reimburse him for
> fuel if he does so. Ray, Scott and Ranae deserve it. The rest you need
> to at least view their pictures. At 10 mega pixels he did not scrimp on
> the quality. Not on his motorcycle, his hangar, his bicycle, his
> partnership or that fabulous aircraft. Congrats again Ray for providing
> Scott's continuity and to Ranae's patience.
>
> Where is James McClow to share in all this excitement?
>
> John #600
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:49 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
> --> 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/
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: John Ackerman <johnag5b@cableone.net>
> The easiest way to get economy is to fly higher (to a point), and
> go LOP on the mixture.
OK flamesuit on
Respectfully disagree. Somebody from Embry-Riddle Florida once (4-5
years ago?) posted a cogent argument that still air range is pretty
much independent of altitude and dependent only on power setting. I've
lost the reference, but I did a crude thermodynamic analysis and sure
enough, got the same result. I'm way too lazy to repeat the analysis
unless forced.
What altitude gets you is more speed at the same range.
John Ackerman
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: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
I don't know about thermodynamic analysis and all that, but when we go high,
we go further on a tank of gas. Maybe it is just the issue of being able to
more safely go LOP on the mixture, which obviously makes some difference,
which you can't/shouldn't do at high power settings. I would have to stank
with whoever you quoted on this one, based on experience. But, I don't use
experience to establish truth, just to illustrate it, so I could certainly
be wrong based on my experience.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Ackerman
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: John Ackerman <johnag5b@cableone.net>
> The easiest way to get economy is to fly higher (to a point), and
> go LOP on the mixture.
OK flamesuit on
Respectfully disagree. Somebody from Embry-Riddle Florida once (4-5
years ago?) posted a cogent argument that still air range is pretty
much independent of altitude and dependent only on power setting. I've
lost the reference, but I did a crude thermodynamic analysis and sure
enough, got the same result. I'm way too lazy to repeat the analysis
unless forced.
What altitude gets you is more speed at the same range.
John Ackerman
--
--
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 |
|
Yes, recently I flew from Atlantic City to SE Florida at 15,500.
What would you like to know?
do not archive
Rob
On Oct 18, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
> Since we are talking about power and altitude flying, I wanted to
> poll those flying and see how high you have flown. I see that
> Tim=92s flight was planned on Duat=92s software at 10,000. Do I hear
> 15, anybody got 15?
>
>
> Do not archive.
>
>
> Jesse Saint
>
> I-TEC, Inc.
>
> jesse@itecusa.org
>
> www.itecusa.org
>
> W: 352-465-4545
>
> C: 352-427-0285
>
>
> --
> 10/17/2006
>
List
> ========================
> ========================
the
> ========================
> ========================
>
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: "arthurww" <arthur@cftech.co.uk>
Anyone using Sanchem Safeguard instead of chromate conversion coatings?
I thought I read some were using but search fails to find any refs.
Regards
Arthur
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68784#68784
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 |
|
Do tell all!
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: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: How high?
Yes, recently I flew from Atlantic City to SE Florida at 15,500. What
would
you like to know?
do not archive
Rob
On Oct 18, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
Since we are talking about power and altitude flying, I wanted to poll
those
flying and see how high you have flown. I see that Tim=92s flight was
planned
on Duat=92s software at 10,000. Do I hear 15, anybody got 15?
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
--
10/17/2006
- 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/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
--
10/17/2006
--
10/17/2006
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 |
|
John,=0A=0AI think Jesse is correct. You get a longer range at altitude.
Look at it this way, if your true speed increases with altitude the only wa
y your range could stay the same is if you are burning more fuel for the sa
me power setting. I don't think thats the case. Range and speed both incr
ease because the total drag is a bit less due to the less dense air.=0A =0A
Niko=0A40188=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Jesse Saint <je
sse@itecusa.org>=0ATo: rv10-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Wednesday, October 1
8, 2006 1:44:59 PM=0ASubject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines=0A=0A=0A--> RV10-L
ist message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>=0A=0AI don't know
about thermodynamic analysis and all that, but when we go high,=0Awe go fur
ther on a tank of gas. Maybe it is just the issue of being able to=0Amore
safely go LOP on the mixture, which obviously makes some difference,=0Awhic
h you can't/shouldn't do at high power settings. I would have to stank=0Aw
ith whoever you quoted on this one, based on experience. But, I don't use
=0Aexperience to establish truth, just to illustrate it, so I could certain
ly=0Abe wrong based on my experience.=0A=0ADo not archive.=0A=0AJesse Saint
=0AI-TEC, Inc.=0Ajesse@itecusa.org=0Awww.itecusa.org=0AW: 352-465-4545=0AC:
352-427-0285=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: owner-rv10-list-serve
r@matronics.com=0A[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf O
f John Ackerman=0ASent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:18 PM=0ATo: rv10-list
@matronics.com=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines=0A=0A--> RV10-List mes
sage posted by: John Ackerman <johnag5b@cableone.net>=0A=0A=0A=0A> The eas
iest way to get economy is to fly higher (to a point), and=0A> go LOP on th
e mixture.=0A=0AOK =97 flamesuit on =97=0ARespectfully disagree. Somebody f
rom Embry-Riddle Florida once (4-5 =0Ayears ago?) posted a cogent argument
that still air range is pretty =0Amuch independent of altitude and dependen
t only on power setting. I've =0Alost the reference, but I did a crude ther
modynamic analysis and sure =0Aenough, got the same result. I'm way too laz
y to repeat the analysis =0Aunless forced.=0A=0AWhat altitude gets you is m
ore speed at the same range.=0A=0AJohn Ackerman=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A-- =0A
=======================
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 |
|
I'm adding a small hat-shelf behind the baggage compartment for jackets,
maps, etc, and other 'light but bulky" luggage.
Will my -10 fall out of the sky? If I placard it will it be OK?
Don't miss the sarcasm.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: James K Hovis
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Flutter and dynamic divergence are REAL issues every airframe designer
(and for that matter, pilot) has to deal with especially so for
higher-performance aircraft. There are two ways to set Vne in FAR Part
23. One, do ground vibration tests to find resonant frequencies (mainly
shake the crap out of it and see if anything falls off) of the airframe,
then go out and flight test to find its flutter point, then set the Vne
at few per cent below this speed. The other is to use the canned Vne
minimum speed formula based on wing loading. The canned formula is based
on statistics from certified aircraft that if you set Vne at this speed
or below, you won't encounter flutter. I suspect Van's took the
conservative approach and set Vne based on the canned formula. Now as
Van points out, weight affects flutter. Balance of control surfaces
affect flutter (see Steve Whitman's crash several years ago), and
horsepower available affects flutter. Most low-power spam-cans don't
have the power to ever approach Vne except in steep dives, while adding
power means the top speed capable (that point where the power available
curve crosses the power required for level flight curve) creeps ever
closer to the flutter point. Now, don't get me wrong, if someone want to
drop in a 300hp engine into an RV, they are more than welcome to do it.
However, they should get a professional test pilot to verify the Vne and
flutter point for the configuration or get training on how to react when
flutter happens (the time from flutter onset to complete divergence can
be REAL small). Understanding the full ramifications of modifications to
the original design and testing for it may save someone's life in the
end.
JKH
On 10/18/06, John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox"
<johnwcox@pacificnw.com >
Let me respond right here that the disgusting phrase "Hot Rodding"
that
I have used in the past is a tongue in cheek mumble that VAN
regularly
uses and for the benefit of Ken Scott who lurks on this list and
tattles
on all who modify this great aircraft. I have a lot of respect for
Randy who built a "By the book, no deviation allowed" RV-10.
However, I
encourage and support those who modify this great basic entry
cruiser
aircraft into what it deserves to become. The most prolific and
popular
4 place kit built aircraft on the planet. I am a proponent of
multi-screen glass efis, higher compression pistons, improved
induction,
improved cooling, improved exhaust, improved cowling, improved
braking,
improved aesthetics, improved graphics and improved composite work.
The
phrase that builders would fall out of the sky or suffer
catastrophic
control flutter by making such logical improvements was from the
editor
of the RVator. I don't buy it, I have the same passion that VAN did
when he Hot Rodded the Playboy into his first RV.
I have 283 ideas (and growing) for improving this great design. Many
of
those are being incorporated with aircraft builders willing to move
off
the "plans only" construction concept. Don't get me wrong, I respect
those of you who do not deviate. I though, am waiting for a
resolution
of the 51% rule before moving ahead with my plans for Builder Assist
-
Commercially. I think that Tim, Scott and Deems are doing a great
job
of growing the spirit of the Home Building Community on this post
and on
their websites. It is with tremendous thrill and pride that I
acknowledge I am but a small part of this 650 kits sold, 55 kits
flying
and lurker community. They just keep getting better and better. I
wish
more was done at VANS to improve the quality, update the publication
and
speed the boxing and shipping process. If Ken Krueger comes to our
dinner Friday, this will be a point worth sharing.
I am praying that Scott flies to Casa Grande next weekend so he can
fly
home with Grand Champion - Copperstate. I will help reimburse him
for
fuel if he does so. Ray, Scott and Ranae deserve it. The rest you
need
to at least view their pictures. At 10 mega pixels he did not
scrimp on
the quality. Not on his motorcycle, his hangar, his bicycle, his
partnership or that fabulous aircraft. Congrats again Ray for
providing
Scott's continuity and to Ranae's patience.
Where is James McClow to share in all this excitement?
John #600
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems
Davis
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:49 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> 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
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Naviga
tor?RV10-List - NEW MATRONICS WEB F= tronics.com">
- bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin. =
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 |
|
One of the recent posts states a very good point.
On one side of the coin Van bolts a 125 horse engine in a play boy and
increase's the the power by 90 percent or so and improves the plane out
of sight. On the other side Vic fits his RV 10 with 325 neddies, an
increase of 25 percent and some deem it to be down right dangerous.
Each to thier own.
P.D.W
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Latest Trip update for LOE + head to head, MT vs Hartzell |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Russell Daves" <dav1111@cox.net>
Dear Tim:
Ann and I left LOE about 11:30 a.m. We waited until we could get out VFR
all the way to Midland. Ate lunch and let the weather clear a little more
from Midland to Lubbock and landed at Lubbock about 4:45 p.m. About an hour
after we had landed in really good weather 1500 overcast the thunderstorms
came back into Lubbock from off the New Mexico cells that were East of you
as you headed north through eastern New Mexico.
Russ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 6:19 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Latest Trip update for LOE + head to head, MT vs
Hartzell
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> I'd sure love to, and invite you to do the same! Yeah, that
> pair of cells in the way to go direct LBB was not nice at
> all when I was there. You did the right thing. What time did
> you get out of there? I didn't see if it was earlier than me
> or later. Either way, that weather wasn't great for anyone
> traveling. I can't wait to hear you rave once you get your
> XM receiver.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Russell Daves wrote:
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Russell Daves" <dav1111@cox.net>
>>
>> Great write up Tim!!!
>>
>> Next time I want you to fly Right seat in N710RV and get your feedback as
>> well. Looking at the Weather Page you posted when you were just west of
>> Clovis, NM you could see the reason I went the south route to Midland
>> before turning back to Lubbock. It was really nasty on the direct route
>> from LOE to Lubbock.
>>
>> See you next time,
>>
>> Russ
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:28 PM
>> Subject: RV10-List: 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 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Vne and flutter (was engines) |
Assumptions:
Vne is based on IAS, and for the -10 is 200kts @ 5000'.
Vne is adjusted by 1.5% for each 1000ft of alt.
At 20000ft, Vne is therefore 15(000)*1.5% less than 200kts (ie 155kts
Indicated)
Check out the attached photo from a turbocharged -10 operating here in
Oz. Yes that is 152 kts at 20120' (Note the TAS in the bottom left
corner and yes, they are knots!)
If published Vne is 200kts at sea level, Vne @ 20000' is close to 140kts
(70% of 200kts)
If published Vne is 200kts at 8000', Vne @ 20000' is close to 164kts
(82% of 200kts)
Fast - yes, but a bit too close to the edge for this little black duck!
I would be interested if anyone knows what the designed Vne (and
associated altitude) actually is.
FLY SAFE
Ron
187 finishing.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Thursday, 19 October 2006 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Flutter and dynamic divergence are REAL issues every airframe designer
(and for that matter, pilot) has to deal with especially so for
higher-performance aircraft. There are two ways to set Vne in FAR Part
23. One, do ground vibration tests to find resonant frequencies (mainly
shake the crap out of it and see if anything falls off) of the airframe,
then go out and flight test to find its flutter point, then set the Vne
at few per cent below this speed. The other is to use the canned Vne
minimum speed formula based on wing loading. The canned formula is based
on statistics from certified aircraft that if you set Vne at this speed
or below, you won't encounter flutter. I suspect Van's took the
conservative approach and set Vne based on the canned formula. Now as
Van points out, weight affects flutter. Balance of control surfaces
affect flutter (see Steve Whitman's crash several years ago), and
horsepower available affects flutter. Most low-power spam-cans don't
have the power to ever approach Vne except in steep dives, while adding
power means the top speed capable (that point where the power available
curve crosses the power required for level flight curve) creeps ever
closer to the flutter point. Now, don't get me wrong, if someone want to
drop in a 300hp engine into an RV, they are more than welcome to do it.
However, they should get a professional test pilot to verify the Vne and
flutter point for the configuration or get training on how to react when
flutter happens (the time from flutter onset to complete divergence can
be REAL small). Understanding the full ramifications of modifications to
the original design and testing for it may save someone's life in the
end.
JKH
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: | First flight write up. |
People always joke about that last 5% lasting forever but it is so true.
It was really nice to get the DAR inspection done and then take a few
days to really make sure everything was finished.
I took off three days of work and combined it with a weekend working
16-18 hour days for five days. I couldn't believe how much we got done
in that time.
I'm sitting here in Houston right now knowing that the weather in SLC is
perfect and its killing me. I've been reading more about the Cheltons
and Grand Rapids and can't wait to play with some of the features this
weekend.
Keep plugging away and call or e-mail if you have any questions.
Sometimes you just get stuck on something.
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
Edgerton
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: First flight write up.
Scott,
Congratulations on your first flight and for building such a beautiful
RV10. You certainly appear to have done a great job and your write up
was great.
I know I'm very anxious to be not to far behind you.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
do not archive
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "johngoodman" <johngoodman@earthlink.net>
Larry & Tim,
You have answered my question. I'll build one wing stand, work is usually done
on the table. I suppose I must put a placard on the stand to show it's merely
a copy - not an original (g)....
John
Tim(at)MyRV10.com wrote:
> 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
>
--------
#40572 Empennage - starting Elevators!
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68836#68836
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 |
|
OR... One takes a fair/poor design & debugs it and someone else takes a
great design & modifies it.
Great design...yea I think Van has proven with years and a string of
models that he knows what he's doing.
Of course there is always someone like John Harmon who takes a Good
design (RV-3 & -4) and makes it better and then Van says yea & comes out
with the -8 & -8A. BUT that's just IMNSHO.
KABONG Do Not Archive. Aint building YOUR own experiential airplane
great ? ?
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Walter
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:35 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Hot rodding
One of the recent posts states a very good point.
On one side of the coin Van bolts a 125 horse engine in a play boy and
increase's the the power by 90 percent or so and improves the plane out
of sight. On the other side Vic fits his RV 10 with 325 neddies, an
increase of 25 percent and some deem it to be down right dangerous.
Each to thier own.
P.D.W
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: Quick Build (QB) Wings & Fuse - Steps Remaining |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
My design is a rip off of Tim's design, and Tim stole it from Dan C. who
stole it from .... Nothing original, just sharing and allowing others
to improve.
Tim did most of his work on a bench but he had slow build wings. I did
most of the work with the wings in the stand. You will be amazed how
much work is already completed with the QB wings.
Larry
do not archive
johngoodman wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "johngoodman" <johngoodman@earthlink.net>
>
> Larry & Tim,
> You have answered my question. I'll build one wing stand, work is usually done
on the table. I suppose I must put a placard on the stand to show it's merely
a copy - not an original (g)....
> John
>
>
> Tim(at)MyRV10.com wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --------
> #40572 Empennage - starting Elevators!
> N711JG reserved
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68836#68836
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vne and flutter (was engines) |
Ron,
I believe the following link will answer your question.
_http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf_
(http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf)
Dave Syvertson
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 |
|
| Subject: | Nose Gear Building Tip |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
I went to installed the nose gear today. In particular, the link collar assembly.
Vans states, "The nose gear Elastomers will have to be compressed in order
to install the bolt. Do this by either pushing down on the forward end on the
aircraft (yeah... right!) and/or lifting up on the aft end."
YGTBSM! Can you imagine pivoting the fuselage on the nose gear by pulling up
on the tail end? That's just plain stupid and unsafe! I tried pulling down
on the front and hardly moved the thing.
Below is a pic of what I did. Works great and much safer! Hope this helps someone
when they get to this stage of construction.
Zack
--------
RV8 #80125
RV10 # 40512
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68847#68847
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06309_906.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06311_898.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06305_426.jpg
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 |
|
Thanks James for opening the can of worms. RV-10s deserve the same
design criteria and flight potential as Lancairs (some run 310 or 350 hp
powerplants). Builders should know why those RV-10 speeds are as slow
as they are. And yes, I love the stall speed. You have now correctly
posted why the patch repair to a control surface should not be attempted
as some discussion here allowed just a few days ago. Buy a new skin and
repair it to original spec. Flutter at under 200 knots could be easily
designed out of the RV-10. Is this why the HP is factory limited at
260.00? Could there actually be compelling reasons for never ever
considering a TNIO engine? These have been reasonable questions which
are Verboten, cause they address both modification and oh dear, hot
rodding. Is someone implying that there are no areas for ease of
improvement such as CNC engineered components or improved composite
attachments?
I think the spirit of improvement, enhanced safety and expanded public
knowledge are alive and well here.
Oh yeh, and I also espouse balancing of All painted and moveable control
surfaces and the instructions for how to do so for every single kit
builder. For the conservative at heart, I applaud "No deviation or
modification - included in this aircraft".
I think the RV-10 has the ability to safely operate as a High
Performance aircraft in the hands of a proficient pilot and provide
decades of satisfying recreational activity to the pilot and passengers.
JWC
Do not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Flutter and dynamic divergence are REAL issues every airframe designer
(and for that matter, pilot) has to deal with especially so for
higher-performance aircraft. There are two ways to set Vne in FAR Part
23. One, do ground vibration tests to find resonant frequencies (mainly
shake the crap out of it and see if anything falls off) of the airframe,
then go out and flight test to find its flutter point, then set the Vne
at few per cent below this speed. The other is to use the canned Vne
minimum speed formula based on wing loading. The canned formula is based
on statistics from certified aircraft that if you set Vne at this speed
or below, you won't encounter flutter. I suspect Van's took the
conservative approach and set Vne based on the canned formula. Now as
Van points out, weight affects flutter. Balance of control surfaces
affect flutter (see Steve Whitman's crash several years ago), and
horsepower available affects flutter. Most low-power spam-cans don't
have the power to ever approach Vne except in steep dives, while adding
power means the top speed capable (that point where the power available
curve crosses the power required for level flight curve) creeps ever
closer to the flutter point. Now, don't get me wrong, if someone want to
drop in a 300hp engine into an RV, they are more than welcome to do it.
However, they should get a professional test pilot to verify the Vne and
flutter point for the configuration or get training on how to react when
flutter happens (the time from flutter onset to complete divergence can
be REAL small). Understanding the full ramifications of modifications to
the original design and testing for it may save someone's life in the
end.
JKH
On 10/18/06, John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com
<mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com> >
Let me respond right here that the disgusting phrase "Hot Rodding" that
I have used in the past is a tongue in cheek mumble that VAN regularly
uses and for the benefit of Ken Scott who lurks on this list and tattles
on all who modify this great aircraft. I have a lot of respect for
Randy who built a "By the book, no deviation allowed" RV-10. However, I
encourage and support those who modify this great basic entry cruiser
aircraft into what it deserves to become. The most prolific and popular
4 place kit built aircraft on the planet. I am a proponent of
multi-screen glass efis, higher compression pistons, improved induction,
improved cooling, improved exhaust, improved cowling, improved braking,
improved aesthetics, improved graphics and improved composite work. The
phrase that builders would fall out of the sky or suffer catastrophic
control flutter by making such logical improvements was from the editor
of the RVator. I don't buy it, I have the same passion that VAN did
when he Hot Rodded the Playboy into his first RV.
I have 283 ideas (and growing) for improving this great design. Many of
those are being incorporated with aircraft builders willing to move off
the "plans only" construction concept. Don't get me wrong, I respect
those of you who do not deviate. I though, am waiting for a resolution
of the 51% rule before moving ahead with my plans for Builder Assist -
Commercially. I think that Tim, Scott and Deems are doing a great job
of growing the spirit of the Home Building Community on this post and on
their websites. It is with tremendous thrill and pride that I
acknowledge I am but a small part of this 650 kits sold, 55 kits flying
and lurker community. They just keep getting better and better. I wish
more was done at VANS to improve the quality, update the publication and
speed the boxing and shipping process. If Ken Krueger comes to our
dinner Friday, this will be a point worth sharing.
I am praying that Scott flies to Casa Grande next weekend so he can fly
home with Grand Champion - Copperstate. I will help reimburse him for
fuel if he does so. Ray, Scott and Ranae deserve it. The rest you need
to at least view their pictures. At 10 mega pixels he did not scrimp on
the quality. Not on his motorcycle, his hangar, his bicycle, his
partnership or that fabulous aircraft. Congrats again Ray for providing
Scott's continuity and to Ranae's patience.
Where is James McClow to share in all this excitement?
John #600
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Building Tip |
--> RV10-List message posted by: <gommone7@bellsouth.net>
Hi Zack, I'm, not far away from that step,that is a good idea,did you check more
or less how much tension you aplly at the engine mount,did you notice any distortion
at the point where you pull,may be if I'm start with your your idea
,but install a small rope harness at each bolt point ,the pulling will be divide
in the four most resistent points of the engine mount,any way that was good
,starting with your idea and three or four variations from others builders ,will
be a new way for Van's to install thats donuts
Really this forum is like to have 300 Pentiums in a computer working at the same
time ,very powerful.
Thanks for the idea.
Hugo
do not archive.
>
> From: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
> Date: 2006/10/18 Wed PM 09:52:12 EDT
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Nose Gear Building Tip
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
>
> I went to installed the nose gear today. In particular, the link collar assembly.
Vans states, "The nose gear Elastomers will have to be compressed in order
to install the bolt. Do this by either pushing down on the forward end on
the aircraft (yeah... right!) and/or lifting up on the aft end."
>
> YGTBSM! Can you imagine pivoting the fuselage on the nose gear by pulling
up on the tail end? That's just plain stupid and unsafe! I tried pulling down
on the front and hardly moved the thing.
>
> Below is a pic of what I did. Works great and much safer! Hope this helps
someone when they get to this stage of construction.
>
> Zack
>
> --------
> RV8 #80125
> RV10 # 40512
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68847#68847
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06309_906.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06311_898.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06305_426.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
This is a matter of trying to ask the kids not to play with matches
cause of the impact on the home insurance rates. Both reasons have
sound merit. Know fire safety, prevention, suppression and rate
increases before playing.
JWC
Do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Walter
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:36 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Hot rodding
One of the recent posts states a very good point.
On one side of the coin Van bolts a 125 horse engine in a play boy and
increase's the the power by 90 percent or so and improves the plane out
of sight. On the other side Vic fits his RV 10 with 325 neddies, an
increase of 25 percent and some deem it to be down right dangerous.
Each to thier own.
P.D.W
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. |
Scott, our hopes and prayers are with you and the gang for a
comprehensive "Head to Head" on the Chelton Pair vs. the Grand Rapids
Pair after the 25 hour Fly Off.
John
Do not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 5:27 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: First flight write up.
People always joke about that last 5% lasting forever but it is so true.
It was really nice to get the DAR inspection done and then take a few
days to really make sure everything was finished.
I took off three days of work and combined it with a weekend working
16-18 hour days for five days. I couldn't believe how much we got done
in that time.
I'm sitting here in Houston right now knowing that the weather in SLC is
perfect and its killing me. I've been reading more about the Cheltons
and Grand Rapids and can't wait to play with some of the features this
weekend.
Keep plugging away and call or e-mail if you have any questions.
Sometimes you just get stuck on something.
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
Edgerton
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: First flight write up.
Scott,
Congratulations on your first flight and for building such a beautiful
RV10. You certainly appear to have done a great job and your write up
was great.
I know I'm very anxious to be not to far behind you.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
do not archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Nose Gear Building Tip |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
A good friend of mine passed on a great tip, and I will ask Tim to post
it on his site, with credit going to Rick Gray. I will take pictures
when I finally am able to do it. What he did was take two blocks of wood
and two 9" c-clamps, braced the wood on the strut and took a half turn
on each c-clamp until the rubber was compressed enough to get the collar
bolt through. Simple and a 1 man operation. I have heard of others
trying to balance on the engine, hanging weights etc, but the c-clamp
idea seems the easiest and least stressful way to do it. I have not
tried it yet, as my engine mount will come with the Egg package and
already have the engine and accessories installed for me..."GRIN"
Dan
40269 (N289DT)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gommone7@bellsouth.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Nose Gear Building Tip
--> RV10-List message posted by: <gommone7@bellsouth.net>
Hi Zack, I'm, not far away from that step,that is a good idea,did you
check more or less how much tension you aplly at the engine mount,did
you notice any distortion at the point where you pull,may be if I'm
start with your your idea ,but install a small rope harness at each bolt
point ,the pulling will be divide in the four most resistent points of
the engine mount,any way that was good ,starting with your idea and
three or four variations from others builders ,will be a new way for
Van's to install thats donuts
Really this forum is like to have 300 Pentiums in a computer working at
the same time ,very powerful.
Thanks for the idea.
Hugo
do not archive.
>
> From: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
> Date: 2006/10/18 Wed PM 09:52:12 EDT
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Nose Gear Building Tip
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
>
> I went to installed the nose gear today. In particular, the link
collar assembly. Vans states, "The nose gear Elastomers will have to be
compressed in order to install the bolt. Do this by either pushing down
on the forward end on the aircraft (yeah... right!) and/or lifting up on
the aft end."
>
> YGTBSM! Can you imagine pivoting the fuselage on the nose gear by
pulling up on the tail end? That's just plain stupid and unsafe! I
tried pulling down on the front and hardly moved the thing.
>
> Below is a pic of what I did. Works great and much safer! Hope
this helps someone when they get to this stage of construction.
>
> Zack
>
> --------
> RV8 #80125
> RV10 # 40512
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68847#68847
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06309_906.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06311_898.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc06305_426.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|