Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:49 AM - Re: FW: [LML] Hope, Denial, Money and Bullshit (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
2. 07:03 AM - Re: Dual Lightspeed? (Werner Schneider)
3. 07:09 AM - Re: Vans wiring kit - mods for fuel injection (Jesse Saint)
4. 08:07 AM - Re: Dual Lightspeed? (Rob Kermanj)
5. 08:37 AM - Fuselage Conduit Support (Nikolaos Napoli)
6. 08:59 AM - FW: Dual Lightspeed? (BPA)
7. 09:42 AM - Re: Accidents in RVs (ivo welch)
8. 09:55 AM - Re: Re: engines (Chris Johnston)
9. 09:59 AM - Re: Fuselage Conduit Support (Larry Rosen)
10. 11:27 AM - Re: Fuselage Conduit Support (John Hasbrouck)
11. 12:10 PM - Re: Fuselage Conduit Support (Jesse Saint)
12. 12:15 PM - Re: Re: engines (Jesse Saint)
13. 12:41 PM - Just a test - Junk mail (Nikolaos Napoli)
14. 04:24 PM - Fw: Fuselage Conduit Support (John Hasbrouck)
15. 06:04 PM - Re: Dual Lightspeed? (John W. Cox)
16. 06:30 PM - Re: Vans wiring kit - mods for fuel injection (Bill Schlatterer)
17. 06:35 PM - Re: Fuselage Conduit Support (JSMcGrew@aol.com)
18. 06:43 PM - Re: Fuselage Conduit Support (John W. Cox)
19. 06:58 PM - Re: Accidents in RVs (Bob Collins)
20. 07:17 PM - Re: Fuselage Conduit Support (John W. Cox)
21. 07:27 PM - Re: Re: Accidents in RVs (John W. Cox)
22. 08:20 PM - Re: Fuselage Conduit Support (Paul Grimstad)
23. 08:21 PM - Re: Fuselage Conduit Support (JSMcGrew@aol.com)
24. 09:01 PM - Re: Accidents in RVs (Bob Collins)
25. 09:02 PM - Re: Fuselage Conduit Support (Tim Olson)
26. 09:04 PM - Re: Fuselage Conduit Support (David McNeill)
27. 09:24 PM - Denso plugs for Lightspeed ignition (Tim Olson)
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: | FW: [LML] Hope, Denial, Money and Bullshit |
Here is where I just purchased it, he is going to wonder what caused the
huge increase in sales, ain't the internet a wonderful thing.....now if
we can just all read it and understand it! http://speedwitheconomy.com/
Dan 40269 (N289DT)
RV10E
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 10:48 PM
Subject: RV10-List: FW: [LML] Hope, Denial, Money and Bullshit
My apologies to the world wide group but Fred's post below is just too
good not to share in the spirit of improved knowledge. Can anyone here
agree to the value of data like Tim and Michael present? Or is it just
a bunch of Lurkers from OSH?
I am going to Google "Speed with Economy". If it is available from
Technical Books, then all the better. What say the rest of you on
Moreno's Aviator's Challenge?
John Cox
#40600
_____
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of
Fred Moreno
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 1:38 PM
Subject: [LML] Hope, Denial, Money and Bullshit
This forum is superb for exchanging ideas, problems, and solutions, but
we seem to be very short on hard data. Maybe that is because it is hard
to get, or because some people don't know how to calibrate and test
carefully, or some don't want to know. As a result we have a lot of
anecdotal evidence, much of which is clearly wrong. Example: one LIV-P
owner proudly announced at the Lancair dinner he was getting 305 knots
at 70%. I had flown in that the airplane, and knew the airspeed
indicator was not calibrated, and the owner's calculation was based on
an E6B which meant it had a built in 20 knot error based on OAT and
compressibility effects. Put that in, and you get about 285 knots
pretty much like everyone else. And he really had no clue about the
exact power setting, just a guess.
Maybe we just prefer rumors and BS to facts. Perhaps that is why rumors
are so popular. Facts are such nasty things. They just won't go away.
I propose we make a concerted effort to gather and exchange
reproducible, defensible data, and share it with the group. Not the
swing of the needle in an updraft or satisfying GPS reading while
screaming downwind, but data that is good enough for us to compare the
relative performance of props, modifications, etc.
With the new Chelton (and other) instrumentation, factory calibrated far
better than your steam gauges, good GPS data, and careful data recording
(OAT, Altitude, fuel flow, etc.) we can get excellent data without a
long and painful calibration process. The new Electronics International
MVP-50 is also a superb instrument, built to good standards with
reasonably accurate sensors and ability to record and regurgitate vast
amounts of data. When I was ordering mine, I found that some of their
customers have used the extra channels to monitor things like engine
cooling air delta P, firewall temperature (how hot is that epoxy REALLY
getting?), and other nuggets of information useful to the rest of us.
This rant is motivated by last night's rereading Kent Paser's excellent
book, Speed with Economy (1994, possibly available through EAA). It
documents Kent's 20+ years of modifications with his 160 HP Mustang II.
Kent is an aeronautical engineer, and took the time to calibrate his
instruments and conduct careful experiments making changes one at a time
to isolate what worked and what didn't. Net result: an increase of 64
MPH in top speed and 59 MPH in cruise speed. Slowed to his old economy
cruise speed, fuel flow was cut IN HALF.
Our Lancairs already incorporate a lot of the features that Kent
explored and adopted, but most of us have failed to learn his (and
other) lessons about exhaust systems, engine air cooling, exhaust air
leakage in low pressure areas, where we should lavish our attention to
detail and such.
If we can collect and disseminate GOOD data in a format that another can
study, digest, and learn, then we can advance our aviation interests
even better than we are now doing.
Moreno's challenge: produce and publish (here, of course) "test reports"
documenting what you measured, how you measured it, if and how you
checked your instruments, and any helpful comments. I promise that if I
ever get my Lancair IV finished (early next year?) I will keep testing
and recording and share the news, good or bad, because it should not be
an ego thing, but a sharing of information thing to help advance our
"state-of-the-art."
I recall one year that Brent Regan and I walked around Oshkosh trying to
capture the essence of the place in a few short words. The Greeks
thought the world consisted of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. We
concluded that Oshkosh consisted of Hope, Denial (of the laws of
physics), Money, and Bullshit.
It need not be that way. Advancement comes from knowledge, and
knowledge comes (in part) from testing, experiments, and real data.
Fred Moreno, Thirsting for Data
--
20/10/2006
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: Dual Lightspeed? |
Hello Rob,
I have it now 3 yrs and so far have still to wait that it fails on me.
Occasionally I have a starting problem when the voltage goes to low, but
just recycling power to the box and you're ready to go again. Start is
normally (if correctly primed) on the 2nd or 3rd blade, runs very smooth
(you know when you do the run up and switch magnetos) and the leaning is
a great thing to extend your range (as long as you have all EGT/CHT
temps monitored). I have no carbon build up on the spark plugs either. I
bought the engine with the Lasar together, but you would need to swap
the two magnetos only, hook up a little box to the cables coming from
the magnetos and you're ready to check the timing (a tester needed for
that).
Pros: my engine is still a certified one, starting and operation I would
not change back to magnetos only, saves also a lot of money on fuel
consumption
Cons: expensive as it is certified, still using magnetos with their
limited lifetime.
The time I bought it (2001) Klaus ignition was available already, but
looking at his electrical layout then did not get me enthusiastic (his
fail over system with two magnetos had a single point of failure. having
the backup on magnetos gives me a good feeling as the engine still would
run without any power (and believe me I have a full electronic cockpit
with three power systems. I would look in the P-/E-mag probably today
for my O-320 but hey, I'm more then satisfied right now with what I have!
Werner
do not archive
Rob Kermanj wrote:
> Br Werner, can you tell about your Lasar set up? How long have you
> had it and how reliable is it? Pros/Cons? Can you describe the
> installation?
>
> Thanks
>
> Do not archive
> Rob
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net
>> <mailto:glastar@gmx.net>>
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>>> In theory, I suppose that you could also run much leaner without
>>> roughness, because you can advance the timing to a point that you
>>> will still achieve a complete burn (or more complete I should say)
>>> of the fuel charge. Again, in theory, you could lean and lean and
>>> lean, and advance (with manual control) and advance and advance, and
>>> get a very low fuel burn.
>>
>> I can confirm, that with my Lasar setup I can run lean of peak to
>> such an extend, that if a go a fractional turn further, my engine
>> just stops and the control is maybe 2-5 mm from the maximum movement
>> when that happened, so I see quite low fuel flow around 6.2-6.5 gal
>> (O-320) during cruise with 23/2300.
>>
>> br Werner
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>> - 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 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: | Vans wiring kit - mods for fuel injection |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
I don't know why, but the pump for an IO requires more than 5 amps. When
talking to Van's, they said that the kit was for the O engine, not the IO,
so I would need to go with a 10 amp switch. Again, I don't know why, but I
know it is true.
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 Larry Rosen
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Vans wiring kit - mods for fuel injection
--> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
The carburated fuel pump is a Facet Pump and the injected engine uses an
ES Airflow fuel pump. Thats the difference, but I do not know if there
is any difference in power requirements. The electrical design per
Van's wiring diagram calls for a 5 amp toggle switch breaker with 18 AWG
wire. And no note for a difference between the 2 pumps.
Larry
John Testement wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Testement"
<jwt@roadmapscoaching.com>
>
> Why would the fuel injected engine require a different breaker size for
the
> boost pump?
>
> John Testement
> jwt@roadmapscoaching.com
> 40321
> Richmond, VA
> Finish kit - wheel fairings, cowl prep
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:32 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Vans wiring kit - mods for fuel injection
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
>
> The kit comes with (or at least used to) a switching breaker (5A) for the
> boost pump. For Injected engines, you need a 10A. You can just switch
out
> the breaker and change the size of wire, if necessary, based on the
amperage
> and the length of the run. You don't ever, that I can think of, need the
> boost pump when the master is off, and you mainly just use it for startup
> when the master is on, of course. You definitely do not want to run it
all
> the time when the ignition switch is in the RUN position. Just a breaker
> would certainly not be the way to go, even if it is a push/pull breaker.
> You want a switch, but again, that is what the kit comes with. It just
> happens to have the breaker in the switch as well (switching breaker) to
> keep things simple.
>
> 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 Perry Casson
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 10:21 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Vans wiring kit - mods for fuel injection
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Perry Casson <pcasson@sasktel.net>
>
> Hi All,
>
> The Van's RV-10 wiring harness kit is designed for a carbureted engine
with
> a boost pump. I'm installing a fuel injected engine so need to make some
> modifications. It looks as if the easy thing would be just to install a
10A
> breaker and upsize the wire to convert the boost pump circuit to a
injection
> pump circuit but is that really what is best? Seems to me we want that
pump
> running as long as the ignition switch is in a run position and not
switched
> with the master on/off. Like to hear what others are doing.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Perry Casson - still wiring....
> Regina, Canada
>
>
>
--
--
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: Dual Lightspeed? |
Thanks for the info, I will most likely switch to Lasar when I am
faced with mag failure. I just cheapened out a little at the time.
How is the "little Box" hooked up?
do not archive
Rob Kermanj
On Oct 24, 2006, at 10:03 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:
> Hello Rob,
>
> I have it now 3 yrs and so far have still to wait that it fails on
> me. Occasionally I have a starting problem when the voltage goes to
> low, but just recycling power to the box and you're ready to go
> again. Start is normally (if correctly primed) on the 2nd or 3rd
> blade, runs very smooth (you know when you do the run up and switch
> magnetos) and the leaning is a great thing to extend your range (as
> long as you have all EGT/CHT temps monitored). I have no carbon
> build up on the spark plugs either. I bought the engine with the
> Lasar together, but you would need to swap the two magnetos only,
> hook up a little box to the cables coming from the magnetos and
> you're ready to check the timing (a tester needed for that).
>
> Pros: my engine is still a certified one, starting and operation I
> would not change back to magnetos only, saves also a lot of money
> on fuel consumption
> Cons: expensive as it is certified, still using magnetos with their
> limited lifetime.
>
> The time I bought it (2001) Klaus ignition was available already,
> but looking at his electrical layout then did not get me
> enthusiastic (his fail over system with two magnetos had a single
> point of failure. having the backup on magnetos gives me a good
> feeling as the engine still would run without any power (and
> believe me I have a full electronic cockpit with three power
> systems. I would look in the P-/E-mag probably today for my O-320
> but hey, I'm more then satisfied right now with what I have!
>
> Werner
>
> do not archive
>
> Rob Kermanj wrote:
>> Br Werner, can you tell about your Lasar set up? How long have
>> you had it and how reliable is it? Pros/Cons? Can you describe the
>> installation?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Do not archive
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
>>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>>> In theory, I suppose that you could also run much leaner without
>>>> roughness, because you can advance the timing to a point that
>>>> you will still achieve a complete burn (or more complete I
>>>> should say) of the fuel charge. Again, in theory, you could
>>>> lean and lean and lean, and advance (with manual control) and
>>>> advance and advance, and get a very low fuel burn.
>>> I can confirm, that with my Lasar setup I can run lean of peak to
>>> such an extend, that if a go a fractional turn further, my engine
>>> just stops and the control is maybe 2-5 mm from the maximum
>>> movement when that happened, so I see quite low fuel flow around
>>> 6.2-6.5 gal (O-320) during cruise with 23/2300.
>>>
>>> br Werner
>>>
>>> do not archive
>>>
>>> - 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> face="courier new,courier" size="2">http://www.matronics.com/
>> Navigator?RV10-List
>>
>
>
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: | Fuselage Conduit Support |
I have ran a wire conduit under the passenger and baggage flooring. This i
s the black stuff that Vans sells. The conduit is only supported at the fr
ame locations (total of 3) so there is no support between the baggage floor
frames which is a relatively long length.=0AI am wondering if this is acce
ptaple and if anyone else has done this. My option is to drill out the bag
gage floor rivets and put in some more supports for the conduit. This cond
uit will be carrying my battery cable. Anyone know what the acceptable uns
upported conduit length is?=0A=0Athanks=0A =0ANiko=0A40188
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: | Dual Lightspeed? |
-----Original Message-----
From: Monty Barrett Sr
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:46 AM
Subject: FW: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
Perhaps the timing advances too much. In other words, the work done BY
the piston increases and the work done ON the piston decreases.
Monty Barrett
BPE,Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: BPA
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:53 AM
Subject: FW: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 2:10 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
Michael, this is exactly the kind of data which keeps the cavity prone
sugar sweetened kool-aid at bay. I agree. I want to know why the
horsepower drop vs. two pre-cambrian magnetos with no timing change on a
dynamometer run.
John
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:36 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
One of the things I posted a while back was a summary of a
conversation I had with a instructor at a Sportair workshop. He is a
long time A&P/IA, teaches A&P at a university in the DC area, EAA
contributor, blah, blah, blah, knows his stuff and is a smart guy.
Basically his thought on the matter was that with a single mag and a EI,
the flame front would no longer meet at the optimum point because of the
differences in timing. Now he didn't have any evidence that this would
cause any problems, but his feeling was that it is less than optimum.
This is why Klaus says that the addition of a second LSE wouldn't
improve things very much, but it also shows that flame front propagation
does have a measurable effect.
This was one of the key factors that led me to make the decision on
dual LSE's. There could also be a negative effect of additional stress
if the flame front is no longer meeting in the center of the piston, but
again I have no evidence of this and it was just a possibility the
Sportair instructor mentioned. Wave propagation isn't the easiest thing
to model but the guys at GAMI and some at Lycoming/Continental are doing
a lot to understand it. This is the same reason you now see odd shaped
piston heads in high performance applications, to get optimal wave
propagation and focus the shockwaves in the cylinder.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 fuselage - still in Texas
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 7:00 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
Flame front propagation is a fascinating topic. F/A mixture is hotter
near the exhaust valve that a comparatively cooler intake valve. Heat is
a catalyst for combustion. If it is a charged carbon deposit and
ignites a mixture at other than the required timing it gets its own name
- Detonation. If the event happens before the piston is ready to
provide the power-stroke and it is before the exalted event, it is
called PRE - ignition. Read the GAMI site. The theory is they both
meet in the middle in perfect harmony. Distributor, Mag timing and
Electronic timing and all things spark related need to change with the
change of engine load and rpm. A finite setting does not enhance this
phenomena.
The phrase Optimum is a mis-leader in that it is the better of a poor
trade off. PRISM will address this need for a changing advanced spark
curve. One of the vulnerabilities of Mags is they are Primeval - Brain
Dead simple and reliable at a single setting throughout a range of
performance requirements.
Everyone building should make their personal decision based on research
rather than popularity of the moment.
John Cox
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Accidents in RVs |
--> RV10-List message posted by: ivo welch <ivowel@gmail.com>
I don't think stall speed per se has that much to do with benign
handling and accident characteristics, although it does correlate with
what seems to matter. what seems important to me is the effort that it
takes for the pilot to get an airplane stall, how much warning the plane
gives, and how it behaves in a stall. for the really adventurous,
getting an airplane into a spin and spin recovery can be added to this.
like the RV-9, the RV-10 is very, very benign. it takes a long time to
slow the plane down into a power-off stall, it is absolutely impossible
to overlook getting close to stall, the plane can dawdle along at stall
speed just fine, and stall recovery seems like less than 50' vertical
loss. accelerated stalls are not that different in behavior. I don't
have the chuzbe to try to spin the plane. (Chicken!).
I learned to fly in a cherokee 160. I think the RV-9 and RV-10 are, if
anything, more benign---and this is definitely an amazing feat. the
reason is that in the cherokee, the panel is so high, it is not that
obvious that your nose is pointing to the sky. with the better
visibility in the RV, it becomes all the more obvious that your nose is
pointing straight up now which is required to stall the plane. actual
behavior of the airplane while approaching a stall and during a stall
feels similar.
Other things are of course easier in a cherokee. the cherokee is a
flying truck. it will keep and hit its low airspeed and altitude
better, but only because it is less "air-slippery." that is, in an RV-9
or RV-10, a thermal can make you gain 100' in altitude in no time. its
almost sail-plane like. (this applied more to the RV-9 than the RV-10,
but even the RV-10 is still more aerodynamic than the piper.) slowing
down to the target speed is not as instant, either. this is not a
safety issue, but if you want to fly by the numbers for IFR purposes, it
requires more concentration and patience. and then there is the ground
handling, which is not as easy for beginners---something RVs share with
Cirrus and a lot of other airplanes (especially in cross-wind landings,
where the castoring front wheel wants to not point straight). the
piper's bigger wheels, shock absorbers, greater distance between wheels,
and nose-wheel steering would be nice to have. I have never had a
problem with it, but I am always a little unhappy with my cross-wind
landings. It can't do it with the same smoothness I could do it with in
the piper.
personally, I think a well-built Vans RV-9 or RV-10 is the safest
single-prop aircraft in the sky today.
regards,
/ivo
http://welch.econ.brown.edu/n325hp/
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston@popsound.com>
Just wondering why no one has been as curious as me to find out more
about that turbo RV-10 down in OZ? I'm not really interested in
duplicating that, but as the first alternative (sort of) powerplant
RV-10, it would be worth investigating! Inquiring minds want to know!
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
do not archive
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: Fuselage Conduit Support |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
I cannot comment on how supporting the conduit, but
Instead of drilling out the floor board, now may be the time to add an
access panel or 2 to the floor. I used the same parts that are used for
the wing stall warning access panel and installed them in the baggage
floor so I have future access to the step mounts. You can see photos
here
<http://lrosen.nerv10.com/Construct/Log/Fuselage/FloorAccessPanels/index.html>.
Michael Sausen used them in a different place in the baggage floor.
Photos are here
<http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=msausen&project=22&category=613&log=15783&row=15>
I may add some additional access panels if and when they are needed.
Larry Rosen
#356
Nikolaos Napoli wrote:
> I have ran a wire conduit under the passenger and baggage flooring.
> This is the black stuff that Vans sells. The conduit is only
> supported at the frame locations (total of 3) so there is no support
> between the baggage floor frames which is a relatively long length.
> I am wondering if this is acceptaple and if anyone else has done
> this. My option is to drill out the baggage floor rivets and put in
> some more supports for the conduit. This conduit will be carrying my
> battery cable. Anyone know what the acceptable unsupported conduit
> length is?
>
> thanks
>
>
> Niko
>
> 40188
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: Fuselage Conduit Support |
Niko,
I've done the same thing and supported the conduit under the
baggage floor with adel clamps. #19 drill used midway along the baggage
rib, #8 screw and nylok nut at each station. Works well. Also
fabricated a bracket to support the conduit as is exits the rear
bulkhead into the tailcone. Pics included.
John Hasbrouck
#40264
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: | Fuselage Conduit Support |
This is what we did, but we used thicker-wall (stiffer) conduit with a
smooth inside. We made a bracket at the back of the baggage compartment
to
hold them with cushion clamps, tied them off to the step support, and
used
grommets in the holes going through the ribs and the rear seat floors.
There=92s no such thing as too much conduit IMHO, especially with a 2AWG
welding wire battery cable completely filling one.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
HYPERLINK "mailto:jesse@itecusa.org"jesse@itecusa.org
HYPERLINK "http://www.itecusa.org"www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos
Napoli
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 11:36 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage Conduit Support
I have ran a wire conduit under the passenger and baggage flooring.
This is
the black stuff that Vans sells. The conduit is only supported at the
frame
locations (total of 3) so there is no support between the baggage floor
frames which is a relatively long length.
I am wondering if this is acceptaple and if anyone else has done this.
My
option is to drill out the baggage floor rivets and put in some more
supports for the conduit. This conduit will be carrying my battery
cable.
Anyone know what the acceptable unsupported conduit length is?
thanks
Niko
40188
--
10/23/2006
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: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
I'm sure you are not the only one by a long shot, but the rest of "us" may
just be quietly curious and waiting for more info. OZ is a long way from
FL.
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 Chris Johnston
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 12:54 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: engines
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston@popsound.com>
Just wondering why no one has been as curious as me to find out more
about that turbo RV-10 down in OZ? I'm not really interested in
duplicating that, but as the first alternative (sort of) powerplant
RV-10, it would be worth investigating! Inquiring minds want to know!
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
do not archive
--
--
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: | Just a test - Junk mail |
I haven't been getting messages for 2 days. Resubscribed and checking the
system.=0A=0ADo 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 |
|
| Subject: | Fuselage Conduit Support |
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hasbrouck
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuselage Conduit Support
Niko,
I've done the same thing and supported the conduit under the
baggage floor with adel clamps. #19 drill used midway along the baggage
rib, #8 screw and nylok nut at each station. Works well. Also
fabricated a bracket to support the conduit as is exits the rear
bulkhead into the tailcone. Pics included.
John Hasbrouck
#40264
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Dual Lightspeed? |
So, Monty - If the amount of advance provided by the Lightspeed was less
(and more in line with a NO CHANGE magneto) is there are potential for
the benefits of electronic ignition without a commensurate drop in top
end horsepower at cruise? Could there be room for improvement in the
programmed timing curve of an electronic unit in your opinion?
John
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BPA
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:03 AM
Subject: FW: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
-----Original Message-----
From: Monty Barrett Sr
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:46 AM
Subject: FW: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
Perhaps the timing advances too much. In other words, the work done BY
the piston increases and the work done ON the piston decreases.
Monty Barrett
BPE,Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: BPA
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:53 AM
Subject: FW: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 2:10 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
Michael, this is exactly the kind of data which keeps the cavity prone
sugar sweetened kool-aid at bay. I agree. I want to know why the
horsepower drop vs. two pre-cambrian magnetos with no timing change on a
dynamometer run.
John
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:36 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
One of the things I posted a while back was a summary of a
conversation I had with a instructor at a Sportair workshop. He is a
long time A&P/IA, teaches A&P at a university in the DC area, EAA
contributor, blah, blah, blah, knows his stuff and is a smart guy.
Basically his thought on the matter was that with a single mag and a EI,
the flame front would no longer meet at the optimum point because of the
differences in timing. Now he didn't have any evidence that this would
cause any problems, but his feeling was that it is less than optimum.
This is why Klaus says that the addition of a second LSE wouldn't
improve things very much, but it also shows that flame front propagation
does have a measurable effect.
This was one of the key factors that led me to make the decision on
dual LSE's. There could also be a negative effect of additional stress
if the flame front is no longer meeting in the center of the piston, but
again I have no evidence of this and it was just a possibility the
Sportair instructor mentioned. Wave propagation isn't the easiest thing
to model but the guys at GAMI and some at Lycoming/Continental are doing
a lot to understand it. This is the same reason you now see odd shaped
piston heads in high performance applications, to get optimal wave
propagation and focus the shockwaves in the cylinder.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 fuselage - still in Texas
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 7:00 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Dual Lightspeed?
Flame front propagation is a fascinating topic. F/A mixture is hotter
near the exhaust valve that a comparatively cooler intake valve. Heat is
a catalyst for combustion. If it is a charged carbon deposit and
ignites a mixture at other than the required timing it gets its own name
- Detonation. If the event happens before the piston is ready to
provide the power-stroke and it is before the exalted event, it is
called PRE - ignition. Read the GAMI site. The theory is they both
meet in the middle in perfect harmony. Distributor, Mag timing and
Electronic timing and all things spark related need to change with the
change of engine load and rpm. A finite setting does not enhance this
phenomena.
The phrase Optimum is a mis-leader in that it is the better of a poor
trade off. PRISM will address this need for a changing advanced spark
curve. One of the vulnerabilities of Mags is they are Primeval - Brain
Dead simple and reliable at a single setting throughout a range of
performance requirements.
Everyone building should make their personal decision based on research
rather than popularity of the moment.
John Cox
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Vans wiring kit - mods for fuel injection |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
The Facet pump for the O series carb model draws only 1 amp according to
Spruce
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/facetpumps.php
Suspect the higher pressure OI pump would take a little more oomph!
Bill S
7a
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:08 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Vans wiring kit - mods for fuel injection
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
I don't know why, but the pump for an IO requires more than 5 amps. When
talking to Van's, they said that the kit was for the O engine, not the IO,
so I would need to go with a 10 amp switch. Again, I don't know why, but I
know it is true.
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 Larry Rosen
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Vans wiring kit - mods for fuel injection
--> RV10-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
The carburated fuel pump is a Facet Pump and the injected engine uses an ES
Airflow fuel pump. Thats the difference, but I do not know if there is any
difference in power requirements. The electrical design per Van's wiring
diagram calls for a 5 amp toggle switch breaker with 18 AWG wire. And no
note for a difference between the 2 pumps.
Larry
John Testement wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John Testement"
<jwt@roadmapscoaching.com>
>
> Why would the fuel injected engine require a different breaker size
> for
the
> boost pump?
>
> John Testement
> jwt@roadmapscoaching.com
> 40321
> Richmond, VA
> Finish kit - wheel fairings, cowl prep
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:32 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Vans wiring kit - mods for fuel injection
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
>
> The kit comes with (or at least used to) a switching breaker (5A) for
> the boost pump. For Injected engines, you need a 10A. You can just
> switch
out
> the breaker and change the size of wire, if necessary, based on the
amperage
> and the length of the run. You don't ever, that I can think of, need
> the boost pump when the master is off, and you mainly just use it for
> startup when the master is on, of course. You definitely do not want
> to run it
all
> the time when the ignition switch is in the RUN position. Just a
> breaker would certainly not be the way to go, even if it is a push/pull
breaker.
> You want a switch, but again, that is what the kit comes with. It
> just happens to have the breaker in the switch as well (switching
> breaker) to keep things simple.
>
> 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 Perry
> Casson
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 10:21 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Vans wiring kit - mods for fuel injection
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Perry Casson <pcasson@sasktel.net>
>
> Hi All,
>
> The Van's RV-10 wiring harness kit is designed for a carbureted engine
with
> a boost pump. I'm installing a fuel injected engine so need to make
> some modifications. It looks as if the easy thing would be just to
> install a
10A
> breaker and upsize the wire to convert the boost pump circuit to a
injection
> pump circuit but is that really what is best? Seems to me we want
> that
pump
> running as long as the ignition switch is in a run position and not
switched
> with the master on/off. Like to hear what others are doing.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Perry Casson - still wiring....
> Regina, Canada
>
>
>
--
--
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: Fuselage Conduit Support |
I put conduit under the baggage floor and supported it with adel clamps.
However, I did not like the Van's conduit. It is too flexible, making it very
difficult to route wire through. I bought 3/4" PEX pipe from the local plumbing
store. It is more flexible than PVC, yet much more rigid than the corrugated
black conduit. It is smooth on the inside and is just under 7/8" OD so it
was easy to enlarge the holes with a 7/8" unibit. I also put the conduit down
the full length of each wing, with a couple holes along the length to allow
wires to exit.
PEX pipe is made for plumbing, so I did a non-scientific test to compare it
to Van's conduit. I used a heat gun to simulate an overheating wire. Try
taking a heat gun to the corrugated conduit: it shrivels up like shrink wrap.
By
comparison the PEX is quite a bit more robust when it comes to heat.
Photos attached.
Jim McGrew
Flying
In a message dated 10/24/2006 7:26:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com writes:
----- Original Message -----
From: _John Hasbrouck_ (mailto:jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com)
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuselage Conduit Support
Niko,
I've done the same thing and supported the conduit under the baggage
floor with adel clamps. #19 drill used midway along the baggage rib, #8 screw
and nylok nut at each station. Works well. Also fabricated a bracket to
support the conduit as is exits the rear bulkhead into the tailcone. Pics
included.
John Hasbrouck
#40264
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: | Fuselage Conduit Support |
Niko - to the best of my review, your question has still gone
unanswered. The answer is, was and will remain - none.
Now for the explanation. Best Practices in AC 43.13 is to leave wire
runs supported at 6" intervals. The benefits are to reduce droop,
reduce wire runs, reduce heat, enhance long term inspection. Tim posted
on his RV-10 University site a DAR PowerPoint on aging aircraft wiring.
It is blamed for the non-conspiracy cause of bringing down TWA flight
800 off the East Coast.
Why is it used? Ease of wire pulling. Ease of retro modification. Why
is the answer none. Cause it has been found to mask the tell tale signs
of an incorrect wire size and the carry amperage of the material
selected. Wire needs to keep cool. With heat, resistance goes up. Do
airlines use conduit, yes in limited locations and usually light wall
aluminum and for the reason of protecting wiring from chafing, adjacent
heat sources such as exhaust stacks or de-ice lines. Conduit, unless
transparent, masks the ability to inspect progressively. Do all
certified GA aircraft avoid conduit, can't answer that. As little as
practical I would guess. It is often 3-4x ID of the conduit over the
OD on the final assembled wire bundle in it. Again for heat
dissipation. Aluminum is great for radiating that heat build up away
from selected hot spots. Yes there are things that cause hotspots in
wire runs.
In Experimental construction, we too often use automotive, lower grade
components, switches and fuses, conduit and non-aviation grade products.
The reasons given are often cost and convenience. Nothing is wrong with
those, if the evaluation takes in all the appropriate informational
input. You get to answer what is appropriate. So you can answer your own
question. Ask yourself why specs are different between DC and AC rated
switches. Can you functionally use the wiring tables to select the
correct gage of wire for the wire run and current carry? Do you know
the effects of heat on the adjacent bundle? Conduit is usually multiple
run. Do you know the difference in momentary and continuous use wiring?
I will bet that not one single builder will change their decision to use
it. That is what makes building Experimentals so much fun.
Convenience!
Want to post this question on the aero-electric list and watch the
verbal joust begin?
Ask Stein, his opinion. Dan Checkoway did a pretty good post on his
site for the failure of support tabs and the need to go in after one
year and re-attach his wire runs.
John
40600
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos
Napoli
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:36 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage Conduit Support
I have ran a wire conduit under the passenger and baggage flooring.
This is the black stuff that Vans sells. The conduit is only supported
at the frame locations (total of 3) so there is no support between the
baggage floor frames which is a relatively long length.
I am wondering if this is acceptaple and if anyone else has done this.
My option is to drill out the baggage floor rivets and put in some more
supports for the conduit. This conduit will be carrying my battery
cable. Anyone know what the acceptable unsupported conduit length is?
thanks
Niko
40188
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: Accidents in RVs |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
This is really an interesting thread. I had hoped to follow-up the article with
one on transition training; not just a "gee you need it" but a look at what habits
or characteristics the non-transitioned pilot have. I then hoped to compare
those with the Cirrus program to further define the differences between the
transitioning RV pilot and the transitioning -- or learning -- Cirrus pilot.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not into the "Cirrus is better" or "RV is better" debate
that sometimes pops up. I'm just into analyzing RVs in the context of other
airplanes, and RV pilots in relation to other pilots in an informative way.
Alas, I've been unable to connect the two leading providers of transition training
on Planet RV for various reasons. If you know of anyone else who provides
transition training, could you please forward this to them and ask them to contact
me.
The article was meant to be the beginning of a discussion, not the end of one.
And thanks!!
Bob Collins
bcollinsrv7a (at) comcast.net
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=70058#70058
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: | Fuselage Conduit Support |
Jim, should we conclude that a heated wire bundle can be located quicker
in Van's black corrugated due to heat shrink. And conversely, your PEX
will mask the heat increase till the wires fuse? You were right that it
is about heat. Should PEX be translucent? cause overheated wire is
insulated with a product so that there is a marked and visible color
change with excessive heat increase. Three distinct stages just like
skin burns. Tim has some good shots. I had forwarded him the same
presentation in Living Color. It is all about identification of an
impending issue before reality sets in during flight. Otherwise the
discussion migrates to inflight backup systems / vacuum gages, fire
annunciation, fire suppression and software to identify the safest and
quick route to the ground with a safe departure from the aircraft.
Always use the lightest gage, the shortest run, the highest quality to
meet the task and to inspect for impending potential problems. Wiring
by its nature functions in a hostile environment.
John
Do not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
JSMcGrew@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuselage Conduit Support
I put conduit under the baggage floor and supported it with adel clamps.
However, I did not like the Van's conduit. It is too flexible, making it
very difficult to route wire through. I bought 3/4" PEX pipe from the
local plumbing store. It is more flexible than PVC, yet much more rigid
than the corrugated black conduit. It is smooth on the inside and is
just under 7/8" OD so it was easy to enlarge the holes with a 7/8"
unibit. I also put the conduit down the full length of each wing, with a
couple holes along the length to allow wires to exit.
PEX pipe is made for plumbing, so I did a non-scientific test to compare
it to Van's conduit. I used a heat gun to simulate an overheating wire.
Try taking a heat gun to the corrugated conduit: it shrivels up like
shrink wrap. By comparison the PEX is quite a bit more robust when it
comes to heat.
Photos attached.
Jim McGrew
Flying
In a message dated 10/24/2006 7:26:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com writes:
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hasbrouck <mailto:jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuselage Conduit Support
Niko,
I've done the same thing and supported the conduit under
the baggage floor with adel clamps. #19 drill used midway along the
baggage rib, #8 screw and nylok nut at each station. Works well. Also
fabricated a bracket to support the conduit as is exits the rear
bulkhead into the tailcone. Pics included.
John Hasbrouck
#40264
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: | Re: Accidents in RVs |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Having participated in Tim's entire transition training (in the
backseat) and regularly attending the annual High Performance
Proficiency Training at the Lancair factory, they are tailored for two
entirely different objectives.
Don't get me wrong, Mike is fabulous for Transition Training.
Proficiency Training, Two day of intensive classroom ground school,
specific Make and Model accident case study review, Unusual Flight
Attitudes, Onboard Emergencies (multiple) and High Alpha Approaches are
not in that transition syllabus. It is a new cat.
They are both Highly valued. Apples and Oranges. I think you can see
the Insurance boys are about to require both. Flight Safety has made an
industry of the later.
However the readers should not conclude anything from RV-9 or RV-10
statistics so soon after introduction. They should be able to conclude
that VAN has enhanced the safety margins by the longer wing design.
Thanks for your great article.
John Cox
Do not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:58 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Accidents in RVs
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Collins"
<bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
This is really an interesting thread. I had hoped to follow-up the
article with one on transition training; not just a "gee you need it"
but a look at what habits or characteristics the non-transitioned pilot
have. I then hoped to compare those with the Cirrus program to further
define the differences between the transitioning RV pilot and the
transitioning -- or learning -- Cirrus pilot.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not into the "Cirrus is better" or "RV is
better" debate that sometimes pops up. I'm just into analyzing RVs in
the context of other airplanes, and RV pilots in relation to other
pilots in an informative way.
Alas, I've been unable to connect the two leading providers of
transition training on Planet RV for various reasons. If you know of
anyone else who provides transition training, could you please forward
this to them and ask them to contact me.
The article was meant to be the beginning of a discussion, not the end
of one.
And thanks!!
Bob Collins
bcollinsrv7a (at) comcast.net
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=70058#70058
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage Conduit Support |
John
Thanks for the post. I think of all the old military aircraft I've seen
over the years with wires bundled and tied to structure. I had a
rough-in electrical inspection on a building project today and the
inspector commented that the electrician did the right thing separating
the wires nailed down a wall line. He said that the circuit breaker must
be de-rated and / or the wire size increased if the wires are
excessively bundled (quoted some code stuff and lost me), also the
maximum length of conduit that a shielded wire can pass through is 24".
Thanks for the input, I'm going to do a little more thinking about the
wire runs.
Paul Grimstad
RV-10 40450 fuselage
Portland, OR 97219
----- Original Message -----
From: John W. Cox
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:42 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuselage Conduit Support
Niko - to the best of my review, your question has still gone
unanswered. The answer is, was and will remain - none.
Now for the explanation. Best Practices in AC 43.13 is to leave wire
runs supported at 6" intervals. The benefits are to reduce droop,
reduce wire runs, reduce heat, enhance long term inspection. Tim posted
on his RV-10 University site a DAR PowerPoint on aging aircraft wiring.
It is blamed for the non-conspiracy cause of bringing down TWA flight
800 off the East Coast.
Why is it used? Ease of wire pulling. Ease of retro modification.
Why is the answer none. Cause it has been found to mask the tell tale
signs of an incorrect wire size and the carry amperage of the material
selected. Wire needs to keep cool. With heat, resistance goes up. Do
airlines use conduit, yes in limited locations and usually light wall
aluminum and for the reason of protecting wiring from chafing, adjacent
heat sources such as exhaust stacks or de-ice lines. Conduit, unless
transparent, masks the ability to inspect progressively. Do all
certified GA aircraft avoid conduit, can't answer that. As little as
practical I would guess. It is often 3-4x ID of the conduit over the
OD on the final assembled wire bundle in it. Again for heat
dissipation. Aluminum is great for radiating that heat build up away
from selected hot spots. Yes there are things that cause hotspots in
wire runs.
In Experimental construction, we too often use automotive, lower grade
components, switches and fuses, conduit and non-aviation grade products.
The reasons given are often cost and convenience. Nothing is wrong
with those, if the evaluation takes in all the appropriate informational
input. You get to answer what is appropriate. So you can answer your own
question. Ask yourself why specs are different between DC and AC rated
switches. Can you functionally use the wiring tables to select the
correct gage of wire for the wire run and current carry? Do you know
the effects of heat on the adjacent bundle? Conduit is usually multiple
run. Do you know the difference in momentary and continuous use wiring?
I will bet that not one single builder will change their decision to
use it. That is what makes building Experimentals so much fun.
Convenience!
Want to post this question on the aero-electric list and watch the
verbal joust begin?
Ask Stein, his opinion. Dan Checkoway did a pretty good post on his
site for the failure of support tabs and the need to go in after one
year and re-attach his wire runs.
John
40600
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos
Napoli
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:36 AM
To: Matronics
Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage Conduit Support
I have ran a wire conduit under the passenger and baggage flooring.
This is the black stuff that Vans sells. The conduit is only supported
at the frame locations (total of 3) so there is no support between the
baggage floor frames which is a relatively long length.
I am wondering if this is acceptaple and if anyone else has done this.
My option is to drill out the baggage floor rivets and put in some more
supports for the conduit. This conduit will be carrying my battery
cable. Anyone know what the acceptable unsupported conduit length is?
thanks
Niko
40188
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
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: Fuselage Conduit Support |
All valid points, John.
I would like to point out that one of the challenges that I found as the
RV-10 comes together is getting the wire runs 100% done before I riveted th
ose
floor panels down permanently and before skinning and installing the wings.
Call it convenience if you will, but I ended up doing 90% of my wire runs
through the conduit long after those areas were sealed up. I certainly didn
't make
that decision lightly. I realize that I deviated from a perfect world to
make things come together.
Are you going to stay away from conduit altogether? How do you plan on
inspecting the wires under the baggage floor area?
Jim
In a message dated 10/24/2006 10:19:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
johnwcox@pacificnw.com writes:
Jim, should we conclude that a heated wire bundle can be located quicker in
Van=99s black corrugated due to heat shrink. And conversely, your PE
X will
mask the heat increase till the wires fuse? You were right that it is abou
t
heat. Should PEX be translucent? cause overheated wire is insulated with a
product so that there is a marked and visible color change with excessive h
eat
increase. Three distinct stages just like skin burns. Tim has some good sho
ts.
I had forwarded him the same presentation in Living Color. It is all about
identification of an impending issue before reality sets in during flight.
Otherwise the discussion migrates to inflight backup systems / vacuum gages
,
fire annunciation, fire suppression and software to identify the safest and
quick route to the ground with a safe departure from the aircraft.
Always use the lightest gage, the shortest run, the highest quality to meet
the task and to inspect for impending potential problems. Wiring by its
nature functions in a hostile environment.
John
Do not Archive
____________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JSMcGrew@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuselage Conduit Support
I put conduit under the baggage floor and supported it with adel clamps.
However, I did not like the Van's conduit. It is too flexible, making it ve
ry
difficult to route wire through. I bought 3/4" PEX pipe from the local plum
bing
store. It is more flexible than PVC, yet much more rigid than the corrugate
d
black conduit. It is smooth on the inside and is just under 7/8" OD so it
was easy to enlarge the holes with a 7/8" unibit. I also put the conduit do
wn
the full length of each wing, with a couple holes along the length to allow
wires to exit.
PEX pipe is made for plumbing, so I did a non-scientific test to compare it
to Van's conduit. I used a heat gun to simulate an overheating wire. Try
taking a heat gun to the corrugated conduit: it shrivels up like shrink wra
p. By
comparison the PEX is quite a bit more robust when it comes to heat.
Photos attached.
Jim McGrew
Flying
In a message dated 10/24/2006 7:26:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com writes:
----- Original Message -----
From: _John Hasbrouck_ (mailto:jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com)
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuselage Conduit Support
Niko,
I've done the same thing and supported the conduit under the baggage floor
with adel clamps. #19 drill used midway along the baggage rib, #8 screw an
d
nylok nut at each station. Works well. Also fabricated a bracket to suppor
t
the conduit as is exits the rear bulkhead into the tailcone. Pics included
.
John Hasbrouck
#40264
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
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: Accidents in RVs |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
AV8ORJWC wrote:
> However the readers should not conclude anything from RV-9 or RV-10 statistics
so soon after introduction.
Maybe, maybe not. As the article notes, Richard L. Collins has done a lot of comparison
of models in the number before first fatality. He says it's not unusual
to have a high number of accidente early in a model life.
If that's true -- and I assume it is -- could we not conclude that it might be
unusual to have the RV-9 record so far? (knock on wood)
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=70073#70073
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: | Re: Fuselage Conduit Support |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I disagree with some of this. First, conduit can also be additional
protection of the wire, from both being snagged by a moving control
service actuator, and from anything rubbing against the wire. Of
course, you also need to strive to ensure the conduit itself isn't
getting chaffed. Next, flying a plane with wires in it, conduit or not,
will require diligent wiring and a leap of faith beyond that.
How many times do you realistically think you'll actually SEE the
wires, conduit or not, under your floors or in those sidewalls.
Yep, probably once a year on the walls, and maybe never again
after install on the floors. So just run them right the first
time. Also, what exactly is going to be going on inside a
nice bundled run of wires in conduit that will chafe them?
They're tefzel coated, and the wires would have to work pretty
hard to chafe eachother. The heat factor is definitely a possible
problem, but the advice given below directly can contribute
to those problems. Imagine using the "lightest gauge" wire possible
for all runs....you have choices....wires are sized according to
gauge that will give a specific temperature rise. Stay within
the low rise specs and you shouldn't have much problem with
any of those bundles....going to the thinner wire with the higher
temp rise and you're getting closer to the limits.
Better advice, IMHO, is to absolutely properly size your
breakers and fuses, which are designed with the goal of
wire protection and limiting over-current situations in mind.
Agreed though that certain conduits are better than others
for temp ratings. It's one reason I went with plenum rated
conduit under my cabin floors. The removal from effects
of fumes and the proper selection of gauge or heavier
wire through the wings led me to have no worries in the
wings. I ran out of 14 gauge at one point, so ran a 12.
There's no problem with that if you protect it with
the same smaller fuse. Wire the whole plane with 10ga
if you wish...you're not sacrificing safety, just
gaining lots of un-useful weight.
Oh, and if the additional weight is going to be considered
a safety concern when running 18 ga instead of 20 ga wire,
there's a theory there too...
Take a peek in the mirror before going off the deep end
to save a pound in the plane, and consider where it's
probably will more likely save your life....skip the
cheeseburger.
There are positives and negatives to most every
choice you'll make....but try not to make mountains
out of molehills, or go throw out too many good
ideas because of minor concerns. Wire chafing
and overheating are scary possibilities when things
go wrong...it's one of the reasons I have only one
battery-bus type wire in my plane, but that doesn't
mean conduit is always going to be a negative.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
JSMcGrew@aol.com wrote:
> All valid points, John.
>
> I would like to point out that one of the challenges that I found as the
> RV-10 comes together is getting the wire runs 100% done before I riveted
> those floor panels down permanently and before skinning and installing
> the wings. Call it convenience if you will, but I ended up doing 90% of
> my wire runs through the conduit long after those areas were sealed
> up. I certainly didn't make that decision lightly. I realize that I
> deviated from a perfect world to make things come together.
>
> Are you going to stay away from conduit altogether? How do you plan on
> inspecting the wires under the baggage floor area?
>
> Jim
>
>
> In a message dated 10/24/2006 10:19:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> johnwcox@pacificnw.com writes:
>
> Jim, should we conclude that a heated wire bundle can be located
> quicker in Vans black corrugated due to heat shrink. And
> conversely, your PEX will mask the heat increase till the wires
> fuse? You were right that it is about heat. Should PEX be
> translucent? cause overheated wire is insulated with a product so
> that there is a marked and visible color change with excessive heat
> increase. Three distinct stages just like skin burns. Tim has some
> good shots. I had forwarded him the same presentation in Living
> Color. It is all about identification of an impending issue before
> reality sets in during flight. Otherwise the discussion migrates to
> inflight backup systems / vacuum gages, fire annunciation, fire
> suppression and software to identify the safest and quick route to
> the ground with a safe departure from the aircraft.
>
>
>
> Always use the lightest gage, the shortest run, the highest quality
> to meet the task and to inspect for impending potential problems.
> Wiring by its nature functions in a hostile environment.
>
>
>
> John
>
> Do not Archive
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *JSMcGrew@aol.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:35 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Fuselage Conduit Support
>
>
>
> I put conduit under the baggage floor and supported it with adel
> clamps. However, I did not like the Van's conduit. It is too
> flexible, making it very difficult to route wire through. I bought
> 3/4" PEX pipe from the local plumbing store. It is more flexible
> than PVC, yet much more rigid than the corrugated black conduit. It
> is smooth on the inside and is just under 7/8" OD so it was easy to
> enlarge the holes with a 7/8" unibit. I also put the conduit down
> the full length of each wing, with a couple holes along the length
> to allow wires to exit.
>
>
>
> PEX pipe is made for plumbing, so I did a non-scientific test to
> compare it to Van's conduit. I used a heat gun to simulate an
> overheating wire. Try taking a heat gun to the corrugated conduit:
> it shrivels up like shrink wrap. By comparison the PEX is quite a
> bit more robust when it comes to heat.
>
>
>
> Photos attached.
>
>
>
> Jim McGrew
>
> Flying
>
>
>
> In a message dated 10/24/2006 7:26:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com writes:
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* John Hasbrouck <mailto:jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:25 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Fuselage Conduit Support
>
>
>
> Niko,
>
> I've done the same thing and supported the conduit under
> the baggage floor with adel clamps. #19 drill used midway along
> the baggage rib, #8 screw and nylok nut at each station. Works
> well. Also fabricated a bracket to support the conduit as is
> exits the rear bulkhead into the tailcone. Pics included.
>
> John Hasbrouck
>
> #40264
>
>
>
> *
>
> ="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> .matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> ronics.com/">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: | Re: Fuselage Conduit Support |
The aircraft mechanics handbook supplies a lot of info regarding loads
voltages ,wire sizes and conduits and bundles, you might want to pick up
a copy.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Grimstad
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuselage Conduit Support
John
Thanks for the post. I think of all the old military aircraft I've
seen over the years with wires bundled and tied to structure. I had a
rough-in electrical inspection on a building project today and the
inspector commented that the electrician did the right thing separating
the wires nailed down a wall line. He said that the circuit breaker must
be de-rated and / or the wire size increased if the wires are
excessively bundled (quoted some code stuff and lost me), also the
maximum length of conduit that a shielded wire can pass through is 24".
Thanks for the input, I'm going to do a little more thinking about the
wire runs.
Paul Grimstad
RV-10 40450 fuselage
Portland, OR 97219
----- Original Message -----
From: John W. Cox
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:42 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuselage Conduit Support
Niko - to the best of my review, your question has still gone
unanswered. The answer is, was and will remain - none.
Now for the explanation. Best Practices in AC 43.13 is to leave
wire runs supported at 6" intervals. The benefits are to reduce droop,
reduce wire runs, reduce heat, enhance long term inspection. Tim posted
on his RV-10 University site a DAR PowerPoint on aging aircraft wiring.
It is blamed for the non-conspiracy cause of bringing down TWA flight
800 off the East Coast.
Why is it used? Ease of wire pulling. Ease of retro modification.
Why is the answer none. Cause it has been found to mask the tell tale
signs of an incorrect wire size and the carry amperage of the material
selected. Wire needs to keep cool. With heat, resistance goes up. Do
airlines use conduit, yes in limited locations and usually light wall
aluminum and for the reason of protecting wiring from chafing, adjacent
heat sources such as exhaust stacks or de-ice lines. Conduit, unless
transparent, masks the ability to inspect progressively. Do all
certified GA aircraft avoid conduit, can't answer that. As little as
practical I would guess. It is often 3-4x ID of the conduit over the
OD on the final assembled wire bundle in it. Again for heat
dissipation. Aluminum is great for radiating that heat build up away
from selected hot spots. Yes there are things that cause hotspots in
wire runs.
In Experimental construction, we too often use automotive, lower
grade components, switches and fuses, conduit and non-aviation grade
products. The reasons given are often cost and convenience. Nothing is
wrong with those, if the evaluation takes in all the appropriate
informational input. You get to answer what is appropriate. So you can
answer your own question. Ask yourself why specs are different between
DC and AC rated switches. Can you functionally use the wiring tables to
select the correct gage of wire for the wire run and current carry? Do
you know the effects of heat on the adjacent bundle? Conduit is usually
multiple run. Do you know the difference in momentary and continuous
use wiring?
I will bet that not one single builder will change their decision to
use it. That is what makes building Experimentals so much fun.
Convenience!
Want to post this question on the aero-electric list and watch the
verbal joust begin?
Ask Stein, his opinion. Dan Checkoway did a pretty good post on his
site for the failure of support tabs and the need to go in after one
year and re-attach his wire runs.
John
40600
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nikolaos
Napoli
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:36 AM
To: Matronics
Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage Conduit Support
I have ran a wire conduit under the passenger and baggage flooring.
This is the black stuff that Vans sells. The conduit is only supported
at the frame locations (total of 3) so there is no support between the
baggage floor frames which is a relatively long length.
I am wondering if this is acceptaple and if anyone else has done
this. My option is to drill out the baggage floor rivets and put in
some more supports for the conduit. This conduit will be carrying my
battery cable. Anyone know what the acceptable unsupported conduit
length is?
thanks
Niko
40188
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
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: | Denso plugs for Lightspeed ignition |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
After 170+ hours on my engine, I finally pulled my top plugs
that go with my lightspeed ignition. Lightspeed uses
Denso W24EMR-C plugs, which are nicer than what you can substitute
(NGK BR8ES) in that they're nickel plated and they have a
cutback electrode for more spark exposure. The NGK's can
be had cheaper though. I know many people throw them out
after 100 hours. I'm thinking 100-150 should be just fine,
based on how mine looked when removed.
So far after a bunch of searching, I find you can buy them from
Klaus for $2.95 each, but there's another place where they
are available for $2.24 each, and the price goes down in
quantity. I'm thinking of putting in an order for at least
60 of them, so I have a supply for a while, but I thought I'd
ask if there is anyone else who's thought far enough ahead
about this maintenance item to know that they'll want a
bunch. I think the price will be down in the $1.58 range
with that sized order. I was thinking as long as someone
wanted to get at least 24 or 36 of them, I could order a
bunch up and split the order with you. The only added
cost would be the shipping to you from me, but if you consider
the savings from $2.95, that quickly starts to pay for
itself.
Not sure I'll be doing this for anyone, but thought I'd put out
a feeler. I love buying in bulk if I can save a few bucks.
It just kind of caught me off guard that these plugs normally
get tossed after a hundred hours by lots of people. Dan
Checkoway says he goes 100 hours on his NGK's. Seems awfully
short to me....that's like 6000 miles in your car, but oh well.
I'm going to stretch mine out to a cleaning at 100 and replace
at the next major de-cowling after 100.
For my bottom plugs, by the way, I've ordered some Iridium
fine wire Unison plugs from Skygeek.com They're a bunch more
than the regular massive electrode plugs, but they're also
much more exposed and open so the flamefront has less
quenching. I'll probably just sell off my old UREM40E's
after I'm running on the new ones and I can get myself a
spare for the road...or maybe sell 4 of them and keep 2
spares with the old ones.
--
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|