Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:36 AM - Re: Nose Gear Building Tip (Russell Daves)
2. 04:19 AM - Re: Re: engines (Link McGarity)
3. 05:09 AM - Re: How high? (Rob Kermanj)
4. 05:43 AM - Re: Re: engines (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
5. 05:46 AM - Re: Sanchem (Stovall Todd Lt Col AF/A4RX)
6. 05:48 AM - Re: Vne and flutter (was engines) (Jesse Saint)
7. 06:01 AM - Re: Re: engines (Kelly McMullen)
8. 06:22 AM - Re: Nose Gear Building Tip (zackrv8)
9. 06:29 AM - Re: Nose Gear Building Tip (Kelly McMullen)
10. 06:31 AM - Re: Nose Gear Building Tip (zackrv8)
11. 06:34 AM - Re: Re: engines (Bobby J. Hughes)
12. 06:37 AM - Re: Nose Gear Building Tip (zackrv8)
13. 07:09 AM - Re: Vne and flutter (was engines) (Brian Douglas)
14. 07:31 AM - Re: Re: Nose Gear Building Tip ()
15. 07:38 AM - Re: Re: engines (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
16. 09:40 AM - Re: Vne and flutter (was engines) (Werner Schneider)
17. 09:48 AM - Re: Vne and flutter (was engines) (LessDragProd@AOL.COM)
18. 10:39 AM - Dual Lightspeed? (Chris Johnston)
19. 11:34 AM - Re: Dual Lightspeed? (Randy Lervold)
20. 11:41 AM - Re: Dual Lightspeed? (Tim Olson)
21. 12:07 PM - Re: Dual Lightspeed? (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
22. 12:11 PM - Re: Dual Lightspeed? (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
23. 12:39 PM - Re: Dual Lightspeed? (Tim Olson)
24. 12:55 PM - Re: Dual Lightspeed? ()
25. 01:02 PM - Re: Dual Lightspeed? (John Jessen)
26. 01:16 PM - Re: Dual Lightspeed? (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
27. 01:38 PM - Re: Dual Lightspeed? (Tim Olson)
28. 03:02 PM - Fw: Re: engines (Nikolaos Napoli)
29. 03:04 PM - Re: Dual Lightspeed? (Rob Kermanj)
30. 05:16 PM - Re: Latest Trip update for LOE + head to head, MT vs Hartzell (John Testement)
31. 05:42 PM - Turbo (Paul Walter)
32. 07:56 PM - Re: Re: engines (John Ackerman)
33. 07:56 PM - Re: Turbo (John W. Cox)
34. 08:10 PM - Re: Dual Lightspeed? (John W. Cox)
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: Nose Gear Building Tip |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Russell Daves" <dav1111@cox.net>
Did you get the bolt through yet? I used your same system, like a lot of
others (posted before) but still couldn't get enough down pressure on the
elastomers until after I hung the engine and then still had to get two guys
to add their weight to each side of the engine mount to compress the
elastomers enough to pin the bolt through.
Russ Daves
N710RV
First Flight 7/28/06
----- Original Message -----
From: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 8:52 PM
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 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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: Link McGarity <wv4i@bellsouth.net>
Not likely, unless you're already near your aft CG limit already, or
some other unrelated factor comes into play. But, you should compute
operating weight CG for each and every flight, including at takeoff and
predicted landing fuel loads. And, you should determine, somehow, the
mean fuselage station for extra compartments such as you describe, and
the weight at such station. The Garmin GPS x96 series have an excellent
weight and balance capability for such a computation that takes seconds
to compute.
I have a neighbor that once owned an RV-6, and just could not get the
landings down. Enter another neighbor, high time experimental driver and
tail dragger type (and also ex F16/F4 driver) and he could not get it
either. Go to weigh the airplane and it's 70+ pounds at the tail while
my RV6 is 52. That's a BIG difference in moment-arm for just 18 lbs,
because it's so far away fm the 0 station, if you will. Go figure. Your
extra compartment is a great idea, but it also has the longest arm of
any station where the weight varies. The 70+ lb tail was not reflected
in the prior owner's Wt & Bal computations, EOW CG to be exact. Did
somebody just decide to make the tail somehow heavier, beefier, etc.?
Who knows? Nothing was obvious. The point is that with experimentals,
the FAA has given the owner or builder much more latitude to hang
themselves. This discussion applies to any mods that deviate fm the kit
manufacturer's plans.
I'm not without sense of humor, or ability to be sarcastic, to say the
least, but I also appreciate the apparent background and knowledge of
many of the posters to this type forums. I've been flying professionally
since 1979, and at this point I'm really into experimental flying for
education and enjoyment. Others?
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 |
|
Jesse, it was a lovely flight but I assume you are looking for the
numbers. I have so far taken two long trips with the BigBird and
found it very economical and in fact, not far off my RV6 in the fuel
burn/speed department. Now, this is the way I fly but you can
certaily burn more fuel and get more speed if you choose.
The first trip was from SE Florida to sacramento, Ca. The second one
was supposed to be from SE Florida to Rockport Maine but was cut
short at Atlantic City NJ because of the alternator failure.
I have flown at 8500 burning 10 gal (55% power) and getting 165 kts
TAS when outside temps were about 53F. During the same flight, at
10,500, I was doing 172 kts TAS, burning 10 gal with OAT around 50F
and again, at 55% power.
During my last trip from Atlantic City to SE Florida, I flew at
15,500 and did not do a whole lot better than 10,500. It was 176 kts
TAS, OAT 45, 10 gal fuel burn and 55% power.
Just for kicks, I flew at 75%, 3000 ft and 15 gal burn and got 178
kts TAS.
I now set the fuel burn a little below 10 at cruise and average 10
gal for the trip including climbs and descents.
When I go for the $100 burger, and do not have the distance to climb
high, I set the fuel burn at 8.5 and get there a couple of minutes
later.
I don't know if this is the information you were looking for but it
was my main concern after the plane was completed. When I began
building, our local 100LL price was $1.99 and doubled in a period of
two years. I then decided to keep my RV6 just for puddle jumping
trips and the dooms day scenario. I have now decided that I can run
the 10 as economical as the 6 and I am selling the 6.
Anyone interested in a IFR 6?!
do not archive
Rob
On Oct 18, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Jesse Saint wrote:
> Do tell all!
>
>
> 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: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:01 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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.
>
> jesse@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
>
>
> --
> 10/17/2006
>
>
> --
> 10/17/2006
>
List
> ========================
> ========================
the
> ========================
> ========================
>
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 |
|
Niko you'll get 10-40% more range depending upon altitude, additionally with
less oxygen you cannot burn as much fuel at altitude so your power goes down
but you're moving faster because the air is "thinner"...if you could get to
up upper levels it gets even better. That's why jets use a lot of fuel
getting to altitude but use very little fuel at altitude.
To get to higher altitudes you need one of several engine types: rocket, jet
or turbo/turbine types. With normal aspiration you can only get so high
before you run our of "air". Mooney created a sort of mini charge at one time
by a small recirculation unit that would give you about an other 1"+ of boost
on MP. Maybe Kelly could tell us how they did this and if one could use
that in an experimental engine to give you a little more boost with out the need
for a tubro, waste gate, fans etc.
Patrick
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Stovall Todd Lt Col AF/A4RX" <Todd.Stovall@pentagon.af.mil>
Arthur,
I'll be using it this weekend to prep my VS and Rudder for priming. I'll give
you a pirep Monday to let you know the results.
Todd
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of arthurww
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:38 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Sanchem
--> 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 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: | Vne and flutter (was engines) |
I can=92t find the fuel burn number on that screen. Any help?
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 McGANN, Ron
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 8:07 PM
Subject: RV10-List: 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.
Do not archive
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
--
10/17/2006
--
10/19/2006
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Sorry to disappoint you, but Mooney's "Ram Air" was nothing more than a
bypass of the airfilter, and was better located than the air filter to
get straight-through flow into the fuel injection servo. Mooney's
standard filter location was on a low pressure area at the bottom of the
cowl, where the ram air inlet was on the front right behind the prop.
Lopresti did it a bit better, extending the inlet out to be closer to
the prop blade in optimized location to get a bit of "compression" from
the prop.
You aren't going to do better than atmospheric without going to a turbo
or supercharger.
Everything else is just improving the physics of getting atmospheric
into the engine.
GRANSCOTT@aol.com wrote:
> To get to higher altitudes you need one of several engine types:
> rocket, jet or turbo/turbine types. With normal aspiration you can
> only get so high before you run our of "air". Mooney created a sort
> of mini charge at one time by a small recirculation unit that would
> give you about an other 1"+ of boost on MP. Maybe Kelly could tell
> us how they did this and if one could use that in an experimental
> engine to give you a little more boost with out the need for a tubro,
> waste gate, fans etc.
>
> Patrick
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: Nose Gear Building Tip |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
Russ..
This way of compressing the Elastomers is a piece of cake. It really is. I
didn't research it in the archives. I was in the shop assembling this thing and
didn't like the way Van was recommending.
The bolt went through easily. No problem. I ractheted the come-a-long tight
but wasn't extremely tight. I did it all by myself with no help at all. It
works.
Zack
dav1111(at)cox.net wrote:
> Did you get the bolt through yet? I used your same system, like a lot of
> others (posted before) but still couldn't get enough down pressure on the
> elastomers until after I hung the engine and then still had to get two guys
> to add their weight to each side of the engine mount to compress the
> elastomers enough to pin the bolt through.
>
> Russ Daves
> N710RV
> First Flight 7/28/06
>
> ---
--------
RV8 #80125
RV10 # 40512
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68908#68908
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Building Tip |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Not sure what your concern about jacking up on the tail is, other than
you have to have enough wt forward of the main gear to get the leverage.
Mooneys use the same Lord discs, and if the nose gear angle needs
adjustment it is much easier to jack the tail than to get out
compression tool to hold the discs compressed while you remove the bolt
and insert a spacer.
zackrv8 wrote:
> --> 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 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: | Re: Nose Gear Building Tip |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
Hugo,
You really don't need to modify this techique. As you can see from the photos,
I tried to use max leverage. The strap is wrapped around the forward part
of the nose gear. The strap wraps around the 2 top engine mounts. This gives
max leverage.
As I started cranking down on the strap, I watched for any deformation of the
mount or gear. NOTHING! Gus Funnel told me on the phone that the motor mount
not only has to support the weight of the big six cylinder under normal conditions,
but also has to do it with 6 g's on it! Nuf said.
Zack
quote="gommone7(at)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"
> Date: 2006/10/18 Wed PM 09:52:12 EDT
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Nose Gear Building Tip
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--------
RV8 #80125
RV10 # 40512
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68911#68911
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bobby J. Hughes" <bhughes@qnsi.net>
This is the data for airspeed vs pressure increase. Assuming the perfect
setup.
Knots Inches of Mercury
60 0.1727
80 0.3075
100 0.4814
110 0.5832
120 0.6950
130 0.8168
140 0.9488
150 1.0910
175 1.4918
200 1.9589
225 2.4943
Ram air can help.
Bobby
40116
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Sorry to disappoint you, but Mooney's "Ram Air" was nothing more than a
bypass of the airfilter, and was better located than the air filter to
get straight-through flow into the fuel injection servo. Mooney's
standard filter location was on a low pressure area at the bottom of the
cowl, where the ram air inlet was on the front right behind the prop.
Lopresti did it a bit better, extending the inlet out to be closer to
the prop blade in optimized location to get a bit of "compression" from
the prop.
You aren't going to do better than atmospheric without going to a turbo
or supercharger.
Everything else is just improving the physics of getting atmospheric
into the engine.
GRANSCOTT@aol.com wrote:
> To get to higher altitudes you need one of several engine types:
> rocket, jet or turbo/turbine types. With normal aspiration you can
> only get so high before you run our of "air". Mooney created a sort
> of mini charge at one time by a small recirculation unit that would
> give you about an other 1"+ of boost on MP. Maybe Kelly could tell
> us how they did this and if one could use that in an experimental
> engine to give you a little more boost with out the need for a tubro,
> waste gate, fans etc.
>
> Patrick
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: Nose Gear Building Tip |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
OK. You could probably jack the tail up, but not by yourself. After the mains
start to leave the ground (and they will because you will not get enough compression),
the fuselage becomes very unsteady and wants to roll. If you had more
people to watch and steady the fuselage, go for it. It still takes alot of
force to compress the elastomers. The full weight of the aircraft is not there
yet, i.e., wings, tail, engine, etc...
Zack
Kellym wrote:
> Not sure what your concern about jacking up on the tail is, other than
> you have to have enough wt forward of the main gear to get the leverage.
> Mooneys use the same Lord discs, and if the nose gear angle needs
> adjustment it is much easier to jack the tail than to get out
> compression tool to hold the discs compressed while you remove the bolt
> and insert a spacer.
> zackrv8 wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
RV8 #80125
RV10 # 40512
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68914#68914
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: | Re: Vne and flutter (was engines) |
I was at the Cherokee Pilots Assoc fly-in a few years back and talked to
Karl Bergey, one of the lead engineers at Piper during the late 60s
early 70s. Anyway, I asked why the Vne was different between the Archer
and Warrior because as far as I knew there wasn't any difference between
the airframes. Expecting to hear "Well we beefed up this or that,
extended the HS by 1 inch, etc" I was surprised instead to hear that Vne
was calculated (at least at Piper) solely by the dive test during
certification. Whatever the testpilot felt comfortable taking the plane
up to in the dive, subtract 20% and you had Vne. The only reason the
Warrior and Archer have different Vne is because the testpilot flying
the Archer went faster in the dive.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is how Vans calculates theirs as well.
-Brian
#40497
Iowa City, IA
-----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
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
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 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Building Tip |
--> RV10-List message posted by: <rickgray@adelphia.net>
2 'C' clamps over the elastomers...one on the px side and one on the drivers side.
Put some tape over the powdercoat (like I did) and you won't even scratch it!
One person, and....you compress where it's meant to be compressed. Took 3 minutes
and it was done.
BTW...this was without the engine hung.....piece of cake!
Rick in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/
> OK. You could probably jack the tail up, but not by yourself. After the mains
start to leave the ground (and they will because you will not get enough compression),
the fuselage becomes very unsteady and wants to roll. If you had
more people to watch and steady the fuselage, go for it. It still takes alot
of force to compress the elastomers. The full weight of the aircraft is not there
yet, i.e., wings, tail, engine, etc...
>
> Zack
>
>
>
> Kellym wrote:
> > Not sure what your concern about jacking up on the tail is, other than
> > you have to have enough wt forward of the main gear to get the leverage.
> > Mooneys use the same Lord discs, and if the nose gear angle needs
> > adjustment it is much easier to jack the tail than to get out
> > compression tool to hold the discs compressed while you remove the bolt
> > and insert a spacer.
> > zackrv8 wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --------
> RV8 #80125
> RV10 # 40512
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68914#68914
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Thanks, Kelly...enjoy the rest of your trip...
P
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vne and flutter (was engines) |
Hello Brian,
I don't think Van's does it this way, they most probably go along with
FAR 23.1505 and calculate this speeds, similar to certified airplanes
(at least how it is certified today). It's a function of several
parameters so you get your flight envelope (see FAR 23.333) and have
your limitations set FAR (23.335). Even kit planes are made today with
some since background.
br Werner
Brian Douglas wrote:
>
> I was at the Cherokee Pilots Assoc fly-in a few years back and talked
> to Karl Bergey, one of the lead engineers at Piper during the late 60s
> early 70s. Anyway, I asked why the Vne was different between the
> Archer and Warrior because as far as I knew there wasn't any
> difference between the airframes. Expecting to hear "Well we beefed
> up this or that, extended the HS by 1 inch, etc" I was surprised
> instead to hear that Vne was calculated (at least at Piper) solely by
> the dive test during certification. Whatever the testpilot felt
> comfortable taking the plane up to in the dive, subtract 20% and you
> had Vne. The only reason the Warrior and Archer have different Vne is
> because the testpilot flying the Archer went faster in the dive.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if this is how Vans calculates theirs as well.
>
>
>
> -Brian
>
> #40497
> Iowa City, IA
>
>
> -----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
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *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 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vne and flutter (was engines) |
For each RV-3, a flutter test to 10% above Vne was recommended by Van's
aircraft. I read a little bit about this before my flight test.
In an attempt to simplify from what I have read:
The Vne is an airspeed based on analysis and design.
This is an indicated airspeed (IAS), or Part 23 calls this an equivalent
airspeed (EAS). The EAS being an IAS that uses a calibrated instrument with a
corrected pitot/static system.
Flutter speed will vary from one aircraft to another of the same design.
Although it is easy to identify when you've reached flutter speed, because
major components SUDDENLY separate from the rest of the aircraft.
The flutter speed is a true airspeed (TAS).
Flutter speed is a variable number, because the actual construction and
alignment of the aircraft WILL change this number. Especially sensitive are the
hinged weight and balance of the flight controls.
Given that Vne is less than the flutter speed at sea level;
IF the IAS of Vne can be maintained with altitude, at some altitude Vne WILL
exceed the flutter speed. (This is a bad thing.)
Reading between the lines, here is what I am hearing Van's Aircraft say:
With the Lyc. 540 engine of 260 horsepower, in level flight the IAS will not
exceed the flutter speed of the aircraft. (Most flight time will be below
12,500'. Very seldom will a flight occur near 18,000'.)
With a turbo normalized Lyc. 540 engine (or an engine with more than 260
horsepower) in level flight at some higher altitude, the IAS could exceed the
flutter speed. And will exceed the flutter speed, if the IAS is allowed to
increase at the start of a descent from a high enough cruise altitude.
(Flutter is a high frequency thing, which we humans don't feel very well.
Major component separation is a low frequency occurrence, which we would feel.
:-) )
Regards,
Jim Ayers
RV-3 sn 50
In a message dated 10/19/2006 7:11:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bsponcil@belinblank.org writes:
I was at the Cherokee Pilots Assoc fly-in a few years back and talked to
Karl Bergey, one of the lead engineers at Piper during the late 60s early 70s.
Anyway, I asked why the Vne was different between the Archer and Warrior
because as far as I knew there wasn't any difference between the airframes.
Expecting to hear "Well we beefed up this or that, extended the HS by 1 inch,
etc" I was surprised instead to hear that Vne was calculated (at least at Piper)
solely by the dive test during certification. Whatever the testpilot felt
comfortable taking the plane up to in the dive, subtract 20% and you had Vne.
The only reason the Warrior and Archer have different Vne is because the
testpilot flying the Archer went faster in the dive.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is how Vans calculates theirs as well.
-Brian
#40497
Iowa City, IA
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: | Dual Lightspeed? |
Hey all -
Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I combed the archives and
couldn't really find what I was looking for. I've got a couple opinions
privately, but thought I'd pose the question to the list. I'm getting
ready to order an engine, and originally I thought I'd go dual
lightspeed ignition, but as I get closer, I'm starting to chicken out
and am thinking of going single lightspeed / slick mag. The aircraft
is all electric, dual battery, and 2 alternators ( main, and SD-8 as
standby). Can I get a few people to weigh in?
Thanks
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net <http://www.perfectlygoodairplane.net/>
(updated!!)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GRANSCOTT@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Thanks, Kelly...enjoy the rest of your trip...
P
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dual Lightspeed? |
With the batteries and backup alternator you are planning I'd definitely
NOT put in a mag. Klaus (Mr. Lightspeed) has a simple backup battery
schematic he provides if you don't want to do multiple buses. No
question it's better to have both plugs firing at the same time!
Randy Lervold
www.rv-3.com
www.rv-8.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Johnston
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:38 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
Hey all -
Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I combed the archives
and couldn't really find what I was looking for. I've got a couple
opinions privately, but thought I'd pose the question to the list. I'm
getting ready to order an engine, and originally I thought I'd go dual
lightspeed ignition, but as I get closer, I'm starting to chicken out
and am thinking of going single lightspeed / slick mag. The aircraft
is all electric, dual battery, and 2 alternators ( main, and SD-8 as
standby). Can I get a few people to weigh in?
Thanks
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net (updated!!)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GRANSCOTT@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:38 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Thanks, Kelly...enjoy the rest of your trip...
P
- The RV10-List Email Forum - -->
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List - NEW
MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - --> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
--> - List Contribution Web Site - Thank you for your
generous support! -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-->
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dual Lightspeed? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I don't see a problem with what you're doing either way. I myself
chickened out, so I have one mag. It seems as it isn't a real
bad compromise anyway, because my RPM drop is almost zero when
shutting off the mag, but is more when I shut off the Lightspeed.
The only negative I can say about running dual lightspeeds on
the IO-540 is this:
The cable that runs from the sensor under the flywheel/ring gear
is a pain in the butt to run, and it sits pretty close to
that wheel. I can imagine that whole area could be somewhat
vulnerable to having things happen to it. Since you use the
same sensors for dual lightspeed, I myself feel better having
something else in the back of the engine. If I were running
2 P-Mags, I wouldn't have the same concern. I'm absolutely
not saying there's something wrong with the arrangement that
needs to be changed...but it just isn't ideal from a reliability
standpoint....and in a manner that would fail regardless of
how many batteries or alternators you have.
I had dreamed of 1 lightspeed and 1 P-Mag, but I heard
a logical argument that due to differences in timing
curves between systems, this might not be a great idea.
You will love the lightspeed though, even if you still
have that one stinkin' mag. ;)
Tim
do not archive
Chris Johnston wrote:
> Hey all
>
>
>
> Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I combed the archives and
> couldnt really find what I was looking for. Ive got a couple opinions
> privately, but thought Id pose the question to the list. Im getting
> ready to order an engine, and originally I thought Id go dual
> lightspeed ignition, but as I get closer, Im starting to chicken out
> and am thinking of going single lightspeed / slick mag. The aircraft
> is all electric, dual battery, and 2 alternators ( main, and SD-8 as
> standby). Can I get a few people to weigh in?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> cj
>
> #40410
>
> fuse
>
> www.perfectlygoodairplane.net <http://www.perfectlygoodairplane.net/>
> (updated!!)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *GRANSCOTT@aol.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:38 AM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
>
>
> Thanks, Kelly...enjoy the rest of your trip...
>
>
>
> P
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> * - The RV10-List Email Forum -*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> * --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>
> **
>
> * - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -*
>
> **
>
> * --> *
>
> **
>
> * - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -*
>
> **
>
> * --> ***
>
> **
>
> * - List Contribution Web Site -*
>
> * Thank you for your generous support!*
>
> * -Matt Dralle, List Admin.*
>
> * --> ***
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Dual Lightspeed? |
I ran dual for 800 hours on one bat and one alt on an RV. Never worried
one bit.
Mike
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris
Johnston
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:38 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
Hey all -
Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I combed the archives and
couldn't really find what I was looking for. I've got a couple opinions
privately, but thought I'd pose the question to the list. I'm getting
ready to order an engine, and originally I thought I'd go dual
lightspeed ignition, but as I get closer, I'm starting to chicken out
and am thinking of going single lightspeed / slick mag. The aircraft
is all electric, dual battery, and 2 alternators ( main, and SD-8 as
standby). Can I get a few people to weigh in?
Thanks
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net <http://www.perfectlygoodairplane.net/>
(updated!!)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GRANSCOTT@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Thanks, Kelly...enjoy the rest of your trip...
P
- The RV10-List Email Forum -
--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-->
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
-->
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-->
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: | Dual Lightspeed? |
Chris,
I opted for dual LSE Plasma IIIs and have dual alternators and
electrical busses. The point that Tim makes is a valid one - the wiring
from the crank sensor must be very well routed/secured. With the dual
system there's a pair of cables but they are running together. I
suppose one could route one down each side of the engine to provide
isolation in case of some sort of mechanical event that damage them.
Bob
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris
Johnston
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:38 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
Hey all -
Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I combed the archives and
couldn't really find what I was looking for. I've got a couple opinions
privately, but thought I'd pose the question to the list. I'm getting
ready to order an engine, and originally I thought I'd go dual
lightspeed ignition, but as I get closer, I'm starting to chicken out
and am thinking of going single lightspeed / slick mag. The aircraft
is all electric, dual battery, and 2 alternators ( main, and SD-8 as
standby). Can I get a few people to weigh in?
Thanks
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net <http://www.perfectlygoodairplane.net/>
(updated!!)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GRANSCOTT@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Thanks, Kelly...enjoy the rest of your trip...
P
- The RV10-List Email Forum -
--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-->
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
-->
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dual Lightspeed? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I see Mike Stewart also replied that he sees no problems.
One thing to be aware of is that Mike probably has the
rear mounted hall effect sensors (or am I wrong, Mike?),
so it isn't the same as the IO-540 crank sensor mount.
Bob's got a good idea of separate routing. I was also
*slightly* personally worried about the fragility of
the electronics up under that hub...and about the
what-if's during bad weather, or even lightning/static
discharge. Again, I'm not saying "don't do it"...just
giving my rationalization. I'm just as swayed to go
dual electronic some day...I just don't quite yet have
the nads required. At least it runs great with just
one, or I'd be just diving right into it.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote:
> Chris,
>
>
>
> I opted for dual LSE Plasma IIIs and have dual alternators and
> electrical busses. The point that Tim makes is a valid one the wiring
> from the crank sensor must be very well routed/secured. With the dual
> system theres a pair of cables but they are running together. I
> suppose one could route one down each side of the engine to provide
> isolation in case of some sort of mechanical event that damage them.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
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: Dual Lightspeed? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: <gorejr@bellsouth.net>
Before you decide you might talk to some larger players in the engine building
business like BPE. They are building my engine and said they would not consider
building it with either the Lightspeed or Lazar systems. They have had to
many problems. They are building mine with 2 Bendix mags. As an aside I have
the Lazar on my mooney and have not had a problem. There is supposed to be
a new system coming out this next year that is superior to these 2 according to
BPE. Good luck! Jim
>
> From: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston@popsound.com>
> Date: 2006/10/19 Thu PM 01:38:15 EDT
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
>
> Hey all -
>
> Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I combed the archives and
> couldn't really find what I was looking for. I've got a couple opinions
> privately, but thought I'd pose the question to the list. I'm getting
> ready to order an engine, and originally I thought I'd go dual
> lightspeed ignition, but as I get closer, I'm starting to chicken out
> and am thinking of going single lightspeed / slick mag. The aircraft
> is all electric, dual battery, and 2 alternators ( main, and SD-8 as
> standby). Can I get a few people to weigh in?
>
> Thanks
> cj
> #40410
> fuse
> www.perfectlygoodairplane.net <http://www.perfectlygoodairplane.net/>
> (updated!!)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> GRANSCOTT@aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:38 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
> Thanks, Kelly...enjoy the rest of your trip...
>
> P
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Dual Lightspeed? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
And, Tim, you have a standard mag, not a p-mag?
John J
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I see Mike Stewart also replied that he sees no problems.
One thing to be aware of is that Mike probably has the rear mounted hall
effect sensors (or am I wrong, Mike?), so it isn't the same as the IO-540
crank sensor mount.
Bob's got a good idea of separate routing. I was also
*slightly* personally worried about the fragility of the electronics up
under that hub...and about the what-if's during bad weather, or even
lightning/static discharge. Again, I'm not saying "don't do it"...just
giving my rationalization. I'm just as swayed to go dual electronic some
day...I just don't quite yet have the nads required. At least it runs great
with just one, or I'd be just diving right into it.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote:
> Chris,
>
>
>
> I opted for dual LSE Plasma IIIs and have dual alternators and
> electrical busses. The point that Tim makes is a valid one the
> wiring from the crank sensor must be very well routed/secured. With
> the dual system theres a pair of cables but they are running
> together. I suppose one could route one down each side of the engine
> to provide isolation in case of some sort of mechanical event that damage
them.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
--
--
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: | Dual Lightspeed? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
FWIW, before making the decision to go single or dual I was having a
discussion at OSH last year with Klaus. While talking Jon Johanson
(south pole fame) came by. Turns out he runs a dual system! Now, I
don't know which engine or pickups he had - 4 cyl can have either hall
effect modules that replace the mags or a crank sensor, 6 cyl only has
the crank sensor as an option. I've noticed within the last few days
some chatter about the hall effect modules leaking oil after a few
hundred hours. It was mentioned during that discussion that the crank
sensor was much more reliable although nothing quantitative to back it
up.
Bottom line: it's all about risk management. In a dual LSE
configuration there's communication between the boxes which supposedly
provides some additional nominal improvement.
Following are the risks that I identified before making the leap along
with mitigation thoughts:
- all electric ignition; lose the electrons and you're a glider. This
is managed by either a second battery wired as in the LSE instructions
or a dual electrical system. Of course, having a single LSE and one mag
also eliminates this.
- crank sensor assembly as a single point of failure. The assembly
actually contains 2 of everything and the only thing common is the
actual circuit board that the components are mounted on. This assembly
(steel plate with circuit board mounted to it) is bolted to the
crankcase behind the crankshaft flange. After the flywheel is in place
it's very well protected.
- wires from crankshaft sensor may be subject to damage. As I said in
my earlier post, easiest way to mitigate this is to run one down each
side of the engine. Biggest risk here is probably the alternator belt
breaking and somehow damaging the wire. Highly unlikely that you'd have
damage to both if they had separate paths.
It would be easy to get REALLY carried away, but the reality is that
there are a lot of single points of failure (fuel lines after the valve,
control linkages, carb or injection system components, engine mech
failure, etc). Bottom line: You have choices here - if dual electric
ignitions is going to cause you to lose sleep at night, go with a single
and a mag.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I see Mike Stewart also replied that he sees no problems.
One thing to be aware of is that Mike probably has the
rear mounted hall effect sensors (or am I wrong, Mike?),
so it isn't the same as the IO-540 crank sensor mount.
Bob's got a good idea of separate routing. I was also
*slightly* personally worried about the fragility of
the electronics up under that hub...and about the
what-if's during bad weather, or even lightning/static
discharge. Again, I'm not saying "don't do it"...just
giving my rationalization. I'm just as swayed to go
dual electronic some day...I just don't quite yet have
the nads required. At least it runs great with just
one, or I'd be just diving right into it.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote:
> Chris,
>
>
>
> I opted for dual LSE Plasma IIIs and have dual alternators and
> electrical busses. The point that Tim makes is a valid one - the
wiring
> from the crank sensor must be very well routed/secured. With the dual
> system there's a pair of cables but they are running together. I
> suppose one could route one down each side of the engine to provide
> isolation in case of some sort of mechanical event that damage them.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
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: Dual Lightspeed? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Yessir, that's correct.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John Jessen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
>
> And, Tim, you have a standard mag, not a p-mag?
>
> John J
>
> Do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:39 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> I see Mike Stewart also replied that he sees no problems.
> One thing to be aware of is that Mike probably has the rear mounted hall
> effect sensors (or am I wrong, Mike?), so it isn't the same as the IO-540
> crank sensor mount.
> Bob's got a good idea of separate routing. I was also
> *slightly* personally worried about the fragility of the electronics up
> under that hub...and about the what-if's during bad weather, or even
> lightning/static discharge. Again, I'm not saying "don't do it"...just
> giving my rationalization. I'm just as swayed to go dual electronic some
> day...I just don't quite yet have the nads required. At least it runs great
> with just one, or I'd be just diving right into it.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Condrey, Bob (US SSA) wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>>
>>
>> I opted for dual LSE Plasma IIIs and have dual alternators and
>> electrical busses. The point that Tim makes is a valid one the
>> wiring from the crank sensor must be very well routed/secured. With
>> the dual system theres a pair of cables but they are running
>> together. I suppose one could route one down each side of the engine
>> to provide isolation in case of some sort of mechanical event that damage
> them.
>>
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
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 |
|
Well I just looked at the Cessna 172 S POH=0Afor standard day=0A =0Aat 2000
ft 73% BHP 9.9 gph 115 KTAS=0Aat 4000 ft 73% BHP 9.9 gph 117 KTAS=0A
at 6000 ft 73% BHP 9.9 gph 119 KTAS=0A =0AFor the same fuel flow at high
er altitude you get a higher speed thus a longer range.=0A =0AThis is clear
ly depicted in the range curve of the 172s POH (Figure 5-9).=0A =0Aat 55% p
ower=0Aat sea level 585 miles 101 KTAS=0Aat 120000 ft 605 miles 110 KT
AS=0A =0AI think part of the problem with the many of the academic articles
is that they are trying to calculate maximum range irregardless of what po
wer an engine can operate at. If you set power to a certain level as 70% t
han the higher altitude will get you a better range. Obviously this does n
ot acount for fuel burn to clim.=0A =0ANiko =0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Mess
age ----=0AFrom: John Ackerman <johnag5b@cableone.net>=0ATo: Nikolaos Napol
i <owl40188@yahoo.com>=0ASent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:08:17 PM=0ASub
ject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines=0A=0A=0ANiko '=0AHere's another take on
it.=0A=0A http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Performance/Page7.html
=0A=0ACounterintuitive, ain't it?=0AJohn=0A=0AOn Oct 18, 2006, at 2:23 PM,
Nikolaos Napoli wrote:=0A=0A> John,=0A> =0A> I think Jesse is correct. Yo
u get a longer range at altitude. Look =0A> at it this way, if your true s
peed increases with altitude the only =0A> way your range could stay the sa
me is if you are burning more fuel for =0A> the same power setting. I don'
t think thats the case. Range and =0A> speed both increase because the tot
al drag is a bit less due to the =0A> less dense air.=0A> =0A>=0A> Niko=0A
>=0A> 40188=0A>=0A>=0A> ----- Original Message ----=0A> From: Jesse Saint <
jesse@itecusa.org>=0A> To: rv10-list@matronics.com=0A> Sent: Wednesday, Oct
ober 18, 2006 1:44:59 PM=0A> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines=0A>=0A> --
> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>=0A>=0A> I
don't know about thermodynamic analysis and all that, but when we go =0A> h
igh,=0A> we go further on a tank of gas. Maybe it is just the issue of bei
ng =0A> able to=0A> more safely go LOP on the mixture, which obviously make
s some =0A> difference,=0A> which you can't/shouldn't do at high power sett
ings. I would have to =0A> stank=0A> with whoever you quoted on this one,
based on experience. But, I =0A> don't use=0A> experience to establish tru
th, just to illustrate it, so I could =0A> certainly=0A> be wrong based on
my experience.=0A>=0A> Do not archive.=0A>=0A> Jesse Saint=0A> I-TEC, Inc.
=0A> jesse@itecusa.org=0A> www.itecusa.org=0A> W: 352-465-4545=0A> C: 352-4
27-0285=0A>=0A> -----Original Message-----=0A> From: owner-rv10-list-server
@matronics.com=0A> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
Of John =0A> Ackerman=0A> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:18 PM=0A> To:
rv10-list@matronics.com=0A> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines=0A>=0A> --
> RV10-List message posted by: John Ackerman <johnag5b@cableone.net>=0A>=0A
>=0A>=0A> > The easiest way to get economy is to fly higher (to a point),
and=0A> > go LOP on the mixture.=0A>=0A> OK =97 flamesuit on =97=0A> Respec
tfully disagree. Somebody from Embry-Riddle Florida once (4-5=0A> years ago
?) posted a cogent argument that still air range is pretty=0A> much indepen
dent of altitude and dependent only on power setting. I've=0A> lost the ref
erence, but I did a crude thermodynamic analysis and sure=0A> enough, got t
he same result. I'm way too lazy to repeat the analysis=0A> unless forced.
=0A>=0A> What altitude gets you is more speed at the same range.=0A>=0A> Jo
hn Ackerman=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> -- =0A>=0A>=0A> -- - The RV
10-List Email Forumavigator?RV10-List" =0A> target=_blank>http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?RV10sp; - =0A> NEW MATRON/" "http://wiki.matro
nics.com/"; =0A> target=_blank>http://wiki.matronics.com< - List C
=========================0A
==================0A>
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: Dual Lightspeed? |
I know that you can rationalize anything you do and this is the way I
rationalized my decision. There are good reasons for electronic
ignitions, they just were not good enough for me.
I decided against electronic ignitions for couple of reasons:
If you break down during your travel, no one can fix your system at
the airport. You will have to order parts and work on it yourself
while being distracted from your intended trip. This is my strongest
objection against anything that is not known at airport shops. I
recently lost the alternator on my trip and experienced this
personally. Since I had to be at my destination the next day, I left
the plane with a mechanic, ordered the alternator from Van, drove the
rest of the trip and came back to pick up the plane after my business
ended.
If you are looking for fuel economy, you will get it with mags at
high altitude and high power. Mag timing is advanced to give you
the best performance at your cruising speeds and altitude. I am
assuming that you are building this plane for something other than
local short trips.
Mags, as short lived as they seem to be in service, can take a lot of
beating and still continue functioning. On one of my trips, I
noticed a missed beat in my RV6. I found that the mag seal was gone
and it was full of oil, but it still worked.
I am not sure if Slick's Lasar system is reliable. If so, that would
be my choice.
Do not archive
Rob
On Oct 19, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Chris Johnston wrote:
> Hey all '
>
>
> Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I combed the archives
> and couldn=92t really find what I was looking for. I=92ve got a
couple
> opinions privately, but thought I=92d pose the question to the list.
> I=92m getting ready to order an engine, and originally I thought I=92d
> go dual lightspeed ignition, but as I get closer, I=92m starting to
> chicken out and am thinking of going single lightspeed / slick
> mag. The aircraft is all electric, dual battery, and 2
> alternators ( main, and SD-8 as standby). Can I get a few people
> to weigh in?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> cj
>
> #40410
>
> fuse
>
> www.perfectlygoodairplane.net (updated!!)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT@aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:38 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
>
> Thanks, Kelly...enjoy the rest of your trip...
>
>
> P
>
>
> - The RV10-List Email Forum -
> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> -->
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> -->
> - List Contribution Web Site -
> Thank you for your generous support!
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> -->
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Latest Trip update for LOE + head to head, MT vs Hartzell |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Testement" <jwt@roadmapscoaching.com>
Tim,
Your trip report was awesome and inspiring! I really appreciate your taking
the time to share your experiences with us as well as all that you are
learning about the plane and avionics. Can't wait to join you in the skys.
John Testement
jwt@roadmapscoaching.com
40321
Richmond, VA
about to mount engine, wiring panel
-----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 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 |
|
A recent post talked of a turbo charged RV 10 here in Australia. I seem
to remember earlier talk on this site saying that this would not be
possible due to additional up front weight in what was already a nose
heavy plane.
Are we about to see an influx of turbo tens ?
P.D.W
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: John Ackerman <johnag5b@cableone.net>
Niko, here's the deal as I see it:
For maximum range, the airplane must be flown at the airspeed/AOA for
minimum drag. That speed increases with altitude, although the minimum
drag remains pretty much constant. The minimum power required increases
directly with the speed, i.e. power equals speed times drag. The speed
vs. altitude data you present below are at _constant_power_, and for
that condition, you are certainly correct. The reason for the speed
increase is that at the higher altitudes, the speed more closely
approximates the speed for minimum drag.
Constant power is not the maximum range condition, though. For maximum
range, the power is really low for most prop/recip aircraft well
below 50% at lower altitudes and it increases with altitude at the
same rate that the speed does - hence constant max range with altitude.
Again, the range numbers presented below reflect the fact that at
higher altitude the plane is being operated closer to the ideal
AOA/airspeed for minimum drag.
Yep, it takes energy (fuel) to climb to altitude, but if you fly
right, you get it back when you descend.
There's a really good reason for flying higher if you want range -
many of us are range limited by our physiological needs, and at
altitude you get the same miles/gallon and range, but at a higher
speed, so you can go farther before your body (or your passenger's
body) dictates a landing.
All this stuff assumes constant engine efficiency. That approximation
is way better than the errors induced by my stick skills - maybe even
most folks' skills. It also assumes still air, but that's another story
entirely.
Best wishes,
John Ackerman
On Oct 19, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Nikolaos Napoli wrote:
> Well I just looked at the Cessna 172 S POH
> for standard day
>
> at 2000 ft 73% BHP 9.9 gph 115 KTAS
> at 4000 ft 73% BHP 9.9 gph 117 KTAS
> at 6000 ft 73% BHP 9.9 gph119 KTAS
>
> For the same fuel flow at higher altitude you get a higher speed thus
> a longer range.
>
> This is clearly depicted in the range curve of the 172s POH (Figure
> 5-9).
>
> at 55% power
> at sea level 585 miles 101 KTAS
> at 120000 ft 605 miles 110 KTAS
>
> I think part of the problem with the many of the academic articles is
> that they are trying to calculate maximum range irregardless of what
> power an engine can operate at. If you set power to a certain level
> as 70% than the higher altitude will get you a better
> range.Obviously this does not acount for fuel burn to clim.
>
> Niko
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: John Ackerman <johnag5b@cableone.net>
> To: Nikolaos Napoli <owl40188@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:08:17 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
>
> Niko
> Here's another take on it.
>
> http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Performance/Page7.html
>
> Counterintuitive, ain't it?
> John
>
> On Oct 18, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Nikolaos Napoli wrote:
>
> > John,
> >
> > I think Jesse is correct. Youget a longer range at altitude. Look
> > at it this way, if yourtrue speed increaseswith altitude the only
> > way your range could stay the same is if you are burning more fuel
> for
> > the same power setting. I don't think thats the case. Range and
> > speed both increase because the total drag is a bit less due to the
> > less dense air.
> >
> >
> > Niko
> >
> > 40188
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Jesse Saint <jesse@itecusa.org>
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:44:59 PM
> > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
> >
> > --> 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
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > -- - The RV10-List Email Forumavigator?RV10-List"
> > target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10sp;-
> > NEW MATRON/" "http://wiki.matronics.com/";
> > target=_blank>http://wiki.matronics.com< - List Contribution
> > Web Site nbsp;- The RV10-List A
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List" target=_blank
> relp;- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMtarget=_blank p;- NEW
> MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> > _sp; --> >
>
>
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 |
|
Everything is possible. It is a matter of evaluating the alternatives,
testing and understanding the results. TNIO provides an interesting
discussion if done comprehensively. Sounds like our brothers across the
pond have done it and not fallen yet. Bet the had to shed the stock/
restrictive cowl from the factory though.
Interesting.
JWC #600
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Walter
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 5:41 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Turbo
A recent post talked of a turbo charged RV 10 here in Australia. I seem
to remember earlier talk on this site saying that this would not be
possible due to additional up front weight in what was already a nose
heavy plane.
Are we about to see an influx of turbo tens ?
P.D.W
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Dual Lightspeed? |
Chris, this is an excellent discussion point but be sure and evaluate
all the characteristics. By reading today's posts, most of the
decisions were a "I follow the leader" mentality. "I don't know why but
the crowd is moving towards the noise. So I guess I should follow" A
responsible solution is to study the characteristics, ask experienced
operators, weigh the pluses and minuses. That means make a list.
At this time the six cylinder P Mag is not yet an alternative. It
merits review. The GAMI supplenator and PRISM are not yet to market.
The magneto and electronic ignition systems are. Do not limit your
knowledge input.
Which performs better at idle?
Which assists in resisting Lead Fowling of your plugs?
Which makes use of automotive plugs rather than aviation?
Which is more reliable?
Which is more cost effective over its entire life?
Which is easier to maintain on the road when traveling distances from
your maintenance base?
Which produces more horsepower and performance in the range requests by
the pilot?
Which works better at altitude?
Which does not change spark advance over the range of load, F/A
temperature and rpm?
What is Flame Front Propagation and why does it require a change in
spark advance to maintain BMP?
Which system will respond better to an alternative fuel to 100LL?
Which one is less prone to failure and ensuing safety concerns?
Your work is not done. Before you reach a conclusion, ask the pros. You
will likely get a choir of similar answers here which might not qualify
the value of the answer enough. This input has not yet been
comprehensively tabulated. In the lack of a conclusion on the subject.
My source is Barrett. The dyno says HP drop with dual electronics.
Research the why and the negatives before throwing out the baby with the
bath water.
John W. Cox
#40600
Do not Archive until all of the meaningful input is recorded.
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris
Johnston
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:38 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
Hey all -
Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I combed the archives and
couldn't really find what I was looking for. I've got a couple opinions
privately, but thought I'd pose the question to the list. I'm getting
ready to order an engine, and originally I thought I'd go dual
lightspeed ignition, but as I get closer, I'm starting to chicken out
and am thinking of going single lightspeed / slick mag. The aircraft
is all electric, dual battery, and 2 alternators ( main, and SD-8 as
standby). Can I get a few people to weigh in?
Thanks
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net <http://www.perfectlygoodairplane.net/>
(updated!!)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GRANSCOTT@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: engines
Thanks, Kelly...enjoy the rest of your trip...
P
- The RV10-List Email Forum -
--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-->
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
-->
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-->
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! --
|