Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:40 AM - WLAS [Please Read] (Matt Dralle)
1. 12:45 AM - Re: Electric Rudder Trim ala Vic Syracuse (Steven DiNieri)
2. 03:55 AM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (Tim Olson)
3. 04:14 AM - Antenna Location (Link McGarity)
4. 04:32 AM - Re: Electric Rudder Trim ala Vic Syracuse (Kelly McMullen)
5. 06:27 AM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (Paul Grimstad)
6. 07:11 AM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (Tim Olson)
7. 07:15 AM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (David McNeill)
8. 07:25 AM - Re: Mini Jets - Think about the possibiities (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
9. 07:39 AM - firewall picture (David McNeill)
10. 07:40 AM - quandrant picture (David McNeill)
11. 07:41 AM - Re: Engine trouble shoots/Update (KiloPapa)
12. 07:44 AM - Re: Antenna Location (LessDragProd@aol.com)
13. 07:47 AM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
14. 07:50 AM - Re: Mini Jets - Think about the possibiities (Kelly McMullen)
15. 08:04 AM - Re: Antenna Location (John W. Cox)
16. 08:05 AM - First impression, tailcone/main fuse joint (John Gonzalez)
17. 08:36 AM - Re: Antenna Location (Kelly McMullen)
18. 08:38 AM - Re: First impression, tailcone/main fuse joint (Tim Olson)
19. 08:59 AM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (Jesse Saint)
20. 09:09 AM - Re: Mini Jets - Think about the possibiities ()
21. 09:12 AM - Fire suppression (was quadrant picture) (John Jessen)
22. 09:15 AM - Firewall indent (was quadrant picture) (John Jessen)
23. 09:32 AM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
24. 09:36 AM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (John Jessen)
25. 10:03 AM - Kits and Family ()
26. 10:23 AM - Re: Fire suppression (was quadrant picture) (David McNeill)
27. 10:31 AM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
28. 10:34 AM - Re: Kits and Family (John Erickson)
29. 10:46 AM - Re: Kits and Family (John Jessen)
30. 10:56 AM - Re: Kits and Family (John W. Cox)
31. 10:59 AM - Re: Kits and Family (Rick)
32. 11:09 AM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (Kelly McMullen)
33. 11:11 AM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (John Jessen)
34. 11:22 AM - Re: Kits and Family (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
35. 11:26 AM - Lyc Knockoff 92 octane compatable ()
36. 11:38 AM - Re: Kits and Family (Tim Olson)
37. 11:54 AM - Re: Lyc Knockoff 92 octane compatable (Kelly McMullen)
38. 11:56 AM - Re: Kits and Family - My story (Deems Davis)
39. 11:59 AM - It is real...Registration that is (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
40. 12:04 PM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
41. 12:06 PM - Re: Slime HS (KiloPapa)
42. 12:06 PM - Re: Priming - Sherwin Williams DTM (KiloPapa)
43. 12:08 PM - Fuel float positioning and proseal (Jae Chang)
44. 12:14 PM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (John W. Cox)
45. 12:21 PM - Re: Kits and Family (Rhonda Bewley)
46. 12:43 PM - Re: Fuel float positioning and proseal (Tim Olson)
47. 12:44 PM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (John Jessen)
48. 12:47 PM - Re: Slime HS (Mark Ritter)
49. 12:53 PM - Re: Lyc Knockoff 92 octane compatable (Rick)
50. 12:56 PM - Re: Kits and Family (Stovall Todd Lt Col AF/A4RX)
51. 01:02 PM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (linn Walters)
52. 01:18 PM - Re: Fuel float positioning and proseal (Jeff Carpenter)
53. 01:22 PM - Re: Kits and Family ()
54. 01:23 PM - Eggenfellner's dual battery requirements. (John Gonzalez)
55. 01:24 PM - Re: Lyc Knockoff 92 octane compatable (linn Walters)
56. 01:33 PM - Re: Antenna Location (W. Curtis)
57. 01:35 PM - Re: Re: Before closing up the top of the TailconeBefore closing up the top of the Tailcone (John Jessen)
58. 01:51 PM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
59. 02:02 PM - Re: Lyc Knockoff 92 octane compatable ()
60. 02:07 PM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (linn Walters)
61. 02:10 PM - Re: Kits and Family (jdalton77)
62. 02:11 PM - Re: AOPA engine vendor thoughts (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
63. 02:27 PM - Re: Kits and Family (zackrv8)
64. 02:28 PM - Re: Mini Jets - Think about the possibiities (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
65. 02:36 PM - Re: Lyc Knockoff 92 octane compatable (Rick)
66. 02:37 PM - Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
67. 02:38 PM - Re: AOPA engine vendor thoughts (Deems Davis)
68. 02:41 PM - Re: Re: Kits and Family (Rick)
69. 02:41 PM - Re: AOPA engine vendor thoughts (BPA)
70. 02:44 PM - Re: Eggenfellner's dual battery requirements. (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
71. 02:45 PM - Re: Fuel float positioning and proseal (Jae Chang)
72. 02:56 PM - Re: Fuel float positioning and proseal (Jae Chang)
73. 02:57 PM - Re: Re: Kits and Family (Tim Olson)
74. 03:15 PM - Re: Kits and Family (bcondrey)
75. 03:17 PM - Re: Fuel float positioning and proseal (Tim Olson)
76. 03:34 PM - Re: AOPA engine vendor thoughts (John W. Cox)
77. 03:43 PM - Re: Kits and Family (Neil Colliver)
78. 05:00 PM - Re: AOPA engine vendor thoughts (W. Curtis)
79. 06:23 PM - Re: Lyc Knockoff 92 octane compatable (linn Walters)
80. 06:37 PM - Okay - Okay tell me I'm just sarcastic on the RV-12 (John W. Cox)
81. 06:39 PM - Re: Lyc Knockoff 92 octane compatable (linn Walters)
82. 06:45 PM - Re: Re: AOPA engine vendor thoughts (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
83. 07:07 PM - Re: Re: AOPA engine vendor thoughts (John W. Cox)
84. 08:00 PM - Re: Re: Kits and Family (bob.kaufmann)
85. 09:54 PM - RV10's near Las Vegas (ddddsp1@juno.com)
Message 0
| 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: | WLAS [Please Read] |
Dear Listers,
I sat down at the 'ol computer tonight to have a look at a few of the nice comments
List Members have been including along with their Contributions this year.
I was amazed at how many I found and even more amazed at some of the very nice
things Listers have been saying about the Lists and how valuable the they
are to them.
I've included quite a few of these nice comments below. Please read over some
of this great Lister feedback. No doubt you will find that you agree with at
least one or two of those comments - maybe all of them! If you find that do,
won't you please make a Contribution to support these Lists today!! Its fast
and easy with the Matronics List Contribution Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Don't forget that I've now fully implemented the new *List Fund Raiser Squelch*
feature that will automatically intercept any future iterations of my "Please
Contribute" messages -- that is, *once you've made YOUR Contribution*! How cool
is that? (Make sure the email address you enter along with your Contribution
matches exactly your subscribed List email address. An exact match is how
it works.)
Thank you for your generous Contributions this year and for all the wonderful comments!!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
================= What Listers Are Saying (WLAS) ================
Absolutely the best deal on the Internet!!
-Owen B
I love The Matronics...
-Robeto B
My wife has her soaps & I've got my lists!
-Hal B
These lists are, indeed, the lifeline of our hobby.
-Bob R
The best source of information for my a/c.
-Tony C
The Zenith list is the first thing I read in the morning.
-Herbert H
You do more good than you can imagine. I wish I'd known
about you while I was building my Kitfox, but you are
still an after-the-fact resource.
-Ben B
..an excellent site.
-Ashley M
The "List" has been the ultimate help for my Zenith
CH 701 project!!
-Brian U
I appreciate the list being here for me.
-Geoff H
..a great service.
-William C
The List continues to be an interesting and useful facility.
-David M
Your list is a constant goad to keep me working on my project.
-Thomas S
..a great service.
-Robert W
The Pietenpol list is a great resource.
-Benjamin W
The Yak-list is Awesome!
-James S
..great service.
-Robert S
The features you have implemented recently have you poised
to knock out yahoo groups...
-Danny D
I like how your forum looks/works and the list service...
-Ken E
..great service.
-David P
Very useful web site.
-Wayne E
..a very valuable service.
-Chris D
Great sites...
-Randall R
I used to look at [that other] site also but it's gotten so
cluttered with advertising that I've stopped looking at it.
-Wayne E
Without your services, the build would be a grope in the dark...
-Fergus K
The information and help I've received greatly outweighs the
donation...
-Lee P
..great service!
-Christopher D
I really don't think I could be building my plane without the
wisdom I find on this list.
-William G
It really makes building a pleasure.
-James P
..great service.
-Doug W
I'm getting near the end of my build (Europa tri XS) don't
think I could have done it with out the help of the forum.
-Stanislaus S
Marvelous service. Couldn't have done it without you.
-Jim G
Love the list, this is a wonderful way to help others...
-Michael S
..good service.
-Derek L
The list is responsible for helping me complete this project
and educating me in the process.
-Jeff D
Definitely worth the donation.
-Ron L
..great service to the aviation community.
-Tony P
I have been flying my plane for 5 years (RV-6) but I still
get valuable information from this service.
-Don N
A very helpful site.
-Roland S
It's a great community to be part of.
-David L
Great sites.
-John C
A great place to find and share not only information but to
meet people across the country and make lasting relationships.
-Uncle Craig
Great facility.
-Peter H
Its a great source of information!
-Michael W
Great improvements to the List...
-Edward A
Great service!!!
-Rich D
..great resource!
-William C
..excellent lists!
-Michael S
Couldn't have built my RV4 without the list.
-Warren M
..a great service...
-James N
I would not have missed [the list] for anything during the
building of my Europa.
-Svein J
..another great year.
-Robert D
..this [is an] essential builder's resource.
-David A
..excellent service.
-Gregory B
I've learned a huge amount of "stuff" over the past year
and look forward to it every day!
-Smith M
..a great communication tool...
-Jon M
Finished building 5 years ago, but still are lurking on
your great list!
-Lothar K
..a valuable service. At 11:00 pm Matronics is the goto
place for my RV questions.
-Mike D
================= What Listers Are Saying (WLAS) ================
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: | Electric Rudder Trim ala Vic Syracuse |
John, I'll probably add one for a 2nd nav reciever, but for ifr ops I'm
going to be most comfortable with a system that most resembles certified
spam can systems. Not so much that they're better, but reliable at best.
Steve
40205
> <jwt@roadmapscoaching.com>
>
> Steve
>
> Have you considered putting Nav antennas in the wingtips? Makes for a real
> clean install and I have heard mostly good reports about reception.
>
>
> John Testement
> jwt@roadmapscoaching.com
> 40321
> Richmond, VA
> Finish kit - wheel fairings, cowl prep
>
> Do not archive
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
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: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables
were in a different location (they probably can be the
same from quadrant to vernier), but that I wanted to use
eyeball passthroughs because the dual snap-bushing thing just
didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some
would disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum rivets
holding the firewall on though), but it's got to be better than
snap bushings. They allow you to start angling that cable
so it comes out of the firewall at an angle that you wish for
better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill the bore
to your cable size for perfect fit.
The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3
holes out for snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted
to use the 2 outer holes and then drill another below them
in the middle. (the holes would run together if I drilled
all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area
got chewed up. Had I not pre-drilled the holes, it would
have been simple, but I made the mistake of first attempting
snap bushings.
So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal
shop where they gave me some stainless scrap, and bought
a "patch" that I could drill properly, and then rivet and
red RTV in place to make it all good again. I got slightly
thicker stainless as well.
For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not
going with the quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like
them here too if they don't work like 220RV. But you can
be reassured that the quadrant offers smoothness and precision...
and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution
Kelly. If you haven't flown one (of this type specifically,
it's worth a try. They're nice.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Paul Grimstad wrote:
> Changes?
>
> Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil cooler recess for
> cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells us again how
> much he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the spring of 05'
> I was planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed up at the EAA105
> fly in. That changed my mind. Life is all about change, isn't it? Tim
> how did you cap off those cable holes? I remember you drilled them out
> and then later found the quadrant runs in a different location?
>
> Bill DeRouchey, I am going to be in Santa Cruz for Thanksgiving. Will
> you be around home? I'd love to see the paint job.
>
> Paul Grimstad
> RV10 40450 with holes to fill
> Portland, OR 97219
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
> A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went unresponded
> to. For those few who have not made their decision or are still
> open to input on the subject of choice. It has been said that the
> Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item first learned by
> instruction or experience is most often retained. Example, most
> pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing. Those who learn on
> Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with Vernier cables, tend
> to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have flown High
> Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with throttle quadrants on
> turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose throttle quadrants.
>
> The choice of throttle quadrants allows the competent pilot to
> control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
> Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a learned skill. Add
> Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive cables are
> automatically replaced with a quadrant and the discussion is over.
>
> Just food for thought which no one commented on after the valuable
> observation.
>
> John Cox
>
> #40600
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: | Antenna Location |
Seeing comments on antenna location in other threads, I thought a couple
of points have perhaps not been considered. First, I've been involved
with amateur radio for about 25 years, both mobile and fixed ops, and
including from my RV-6. My FCC callsign is WV4I, for the other hams on
this forum.
The problem with wing tip antennas, or antennas not located on the
fuselage or vertical stab leading edge or tip, would seem to be twofold.
One, re the wing tip location, such would likely cause a null in
reception (and transmission) primarily oriented in the direction of the
wing. Also, if the aircraft antenna is of one orientation, e.g.
horizontal, and the target station is vertical oriented (polarized, to
be precise), typically a 20db path loss occurs. Every 3db loss equates
to roughly a 50% drop in signal strength.
Another issue that may arise with antennas mounted parallel to metal
structures is that they become detuned. As an antenna is "cut" to
resonate at a desired frequency, with a given bandwidth, e.g. 118-136mhz
at <2:1 SWR, this resonance point can be be altered, diminished, or even
eliminated by nearby metal objects. Antenna resonance is important to
good receiver or transceiver performance, and in the case of
transmitters without high SWR protective circuitry, high SWR can damage
final output transistors.
This gets to be a very complex subject quickly, and I'm no electrical
engineer, but just some thoughts to consider on antenna placement.
Link McGarity
#40622
RV6/N42GF/flying, non-builder
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: Electric Rudder Trim ala Vic Syracuse |
You might consider that many certified systems run 2 navs and 1 or 2
GS all off one nav antenna, and some are in fact built with nav
antennas in the wingtips. I know of at least one STC to remove tail
mounted nav antenna and replace it with one built into a fiberglass
wingtip. So if you are going to put an antenna in the wing tip, unless
you want to do the electronic comparison, there isn't a lot of reason
to have to nav antennas.
On 11/13/06, Steven DiNieri <capsteve@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
> John, I'll probably add one for a 2nd nav reciever, but for ifr ops I'm
> going to be most comfortable with a system that most resembles certified
> spam can systems. Not so much that they're better, but reliable at best.
> Steve
> 40205
>
>
> > <jwt@roadmapscoaching.com>
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > Have you considered putting Nav antennas in the wingtips? Makes for a real
> > clean install and I have heard mostly good reports about reception.
> >
> >
> > John Testement
> > jwt@roadmapscoaching.com
> > 40321
> > Richmond, VA
> > Finish kit - wheel fairings, cowl prep
> >
> > Do not archive
> >
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
Thanks Tim
Where did you purchase the eyeballs and do you recall the hole size?
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
> Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables
> were in a different location (they probably can be the
> same from quadrant to vernier), but that I wanted to use
> eyeball passthroughs because the dual snap-bushing thing just
> didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some
> would disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum rivets
> holding the firewall on though), but it's got to be better than
> snap bushings. They allow you to start angling that cable
> so it comes out of the firewall at an angle that you wish for
> better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill the bore
> to your cable size for perfect fit.
>
> The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3
> holes out for snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted
> to use the 2 outer holes and then drill another below them
> in the middle. (the holes would run together if I drilled
> all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
> ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area
> got chewed up. Had I not pre-drilled the holes, it would
> have been simple, but I made the mistake of first attempting
> snap bushings.
>
> So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal
> shop where they gave me some stainless scrap, and bought
> a "patch" that I could drill properly, and then rivet and
> red RTV in place to make it all good again. I got slightly
> thicker stainless as well.
>
> For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not
> going with the quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like
> them here too if they don't work like 220RV. But you can
> be reassured that the quadrant offers smoothness and precision...
> and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution
> Kelly. If you haven't flown one (of this type specifically,
> it's worth a try. They're nice.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Paul Grimstad wrote:
>> Changes?
>> Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil cooler recess for
>> cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells us again how much
>> he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the spring of 05' I was
>> planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed up at the EAA105 fly in.
>> That changed my mind. Life is all about change, isn't it? Tim how did you
>> cap off those cable holes? I remember you drilled them out and then later
>> found the quadrant runs in a different location? Bill DeRouchey, I am
>> going to be in Santa Cruz for Thanksgiving. Will you be around home? I'd
>> love to see the paint job.
>> Paul Grimstad
>> RV10 40450 with holes to fill
>> Portland, OR 97219
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
>> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>>
>> A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went unresponded
>> to. For those few who have not made their decision or are still
>> open to input on the subject of choice. It has been said that the
>> Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item first learned by
>> instruction or experience is most often retained. Example, most
>> pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing. Those who learn on
>> Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with Vernier cables, tend
>> to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have flown High
>> Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with throttle quadrants on
>> turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose throttle quadrants.
>>
>> The choice of throttle quadrants allows the competent pilot to
>> control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
>> Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a learned skill. Add
>> Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive cables are
>> automatically replaced with a quadrant and the discussion is over.
>>
>> Just food for thought which no one commented on after the valuable
>> observation.
>>
>> John Cox
>>
>> #40600
>>
>> *
>>
>> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
>> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
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: | Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
I got them from Vans.
TTP-125
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1163430628-156-660&browse=airframe&product=one_eye
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Paul Grimstad wrote:
>
> Thanks Tim
> Where did you purchase the eyeballs and do you recall the hole size?
> Paul
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:54 AM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
>
>>
>> Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables
>> were in a different location (they probably can be the
>> same from quadrant to vernier), but that I wanted to use
>> eyeball passthroughs because the dual snap-bushing thing just
>> didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some
>> would disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum rivets
>> holding the firewall on though), but it's got to be better than
>> snap bushings. They allow you to start angling that cable
>> so it comes out of the firewall at an angle that you wish for
>> better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill the bore
>> to your cable size for perfect fit.
>>
>> The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3
>> holes out for snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted
>> to use the 2 outer holes and then drill another below them
>> in the middle. (the holes would run together if I drilled
>> all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
>> ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area
>> got chewed up. Had I not pre-drilled the holes, it would
>> have been simple, but I made the mistake of first attempting
>> snap bushings.
>>
>> So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal
>> shop where they gave me some stainless scrap, and bought
>> a "patch" that I could drill properly, and then rivet and
>> red RTV in place to make it all good again. I got slightly
>> thicker stainless as well.
>>
>> For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not
>> going with the quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like
>> them here too if they don't work like 220RV. But you can
>> be reassured that the quadrant offers smoothness and precision...
>> and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution
>> Kelly. If you haven't flown one (of this type specifically,
>> it's worth a try. They're nice.
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> Paul Grimstad wrote:
>>> Changes?
>>> Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil cooler recess
>>> for cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells us again
>>> how much he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the spring of
>>> 05' I was planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed up at the
>>> EAA105 fly in. That changed my mind. Life is all about change, isn't
>>> it? Tim how did you cap off those cable holes? I remember you drilled
>>> them out and then later found the quadrant runs in a different
>>> location? Bill DeRouchey, I am going to be in Santa Cruz for
>>> Thanksgiving. Will you be around home? I'd love to see the paint job.
>>> Paul Grimstad
>>> RV10 40450 with holes to fill
>>> Portland, OR 97219
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
>>> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>>>
>>> A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went unresponded
>>> to. For those few who have not made their decision or are still
>>> open to input on the subject of choice. It has been said that the
>>> Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item first learned by
>>> instruction or experience is most often retained. Example, most
>>> pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing. Those who learn on
>>> Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with Vernier cables, tend
>>> to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have flown High
>>> Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with throttle quadrants on
>>> turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose throttle quadrants.
>>>
>>> The choice of throttle quadrants allows the competent pilot to
>>> control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
>>> Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a learned skill. Add
>>> Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive cables are
>>> automatically replaced with a quadrant and the discussion is over.
>>>
>>> Just food for thought which no one commented on after the valuable
>>> observation.
>>>
>>> John Cox
>>>
>>> #40600
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
>>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
>>> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
>>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>>
>>> href="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: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
Aircraft Spruce. largest aluminum is about .25 and will have to be reamed.
the smaller size hole in steel fits the alternate air cable for the fuel
injection airbox. Haven't mounted the engine yet but the best format seems
to be an inverted triangle using the two outboard holes enlarged to contain
the center prepunched hole. alt air went into the pilot side top corner.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Grimstad" <bldgrv10450@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
> Thanks Tim
> Where did you purchase the eyeballs and do you recall the hole size?
> Paul
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:54 AM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
>
>>
>> Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables
>> were in a different location (they probably can be the
>> same from quadrant to vernier), but that I wanted to use
>> eyeball passthroughs because the dual snap-bushing thing just
>> didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some
>> would disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum rivets
>> holding the firewall on though), but it's got to be better than
>> snap bushings. They allow you to start angling that cable
>> so it comes out of the firewall at an angle that you wish for
>> better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill the bore
>> to your cable size for perfect fit.
>>
>> The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3
>> holes out for snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted
>> to use the 2 outer holes and then drill another below them
>> in the middle. (the holes would run together if I drilled
>> all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
>> ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area
>> got chewed up. Had I not pre-drilled the holes, it would
>> have been simple, but I made the mistake of first attempting
>> snap bushings.
>>
>> So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal
>> shop where they gave me some stainless scrap, and bought
>> a "patch" that I could drill properly, and then rivet and
>> red RTV in place to make it all good again. I got slightly
>> thicker stainless as well.
>>
>> For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not
>> going with the quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like
>> them here too if they don't work like 220RV. But you can
>> be reassured that the quadrant offers smoothness and precision...
>> and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution
>> Kelly. If you haven't flown one (of this type specifically,
>> it's worth a try. They're nice.
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> Paul Grimstad wrote:
>>> Changes?
>>> Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil cooler recess for
>>> cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells us again how
>>> much he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the spring of 05' I
>>> was planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed up at the EAA105
>>> fly in. That changed my mind. Life is all about change, isn't it? Tim
>>> how did you cap off those cable holes? I remember you drilled them out
>>> and then later found the quadrant runs in a different location? Bill
>>> DeRouchey, I am going to be in Santa Cruz for Thanksgiving. Will you be
>>> around home? I'd love to see the paint job.
>>> Paul Grimstad
>>> RV10 40450 with holes to fill
>>> Portland, OR 97219
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
>>> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>>>
>>> A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went unresponded
>>> to. For those few who have not made their decision or are still
>>> open to input on the subject of choice. It has been said that the
>>> Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item first learned by
>>> instruction or experience is most often retained. Example, most
>>> pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing. Those who learn on
>>> Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with Vernier cables, tend
>>> to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have flown High
>>> Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with throttle quadrants on
>>> turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose throttle quadrants.
>>>
>>> The choice of throttle quadrants allows the competent pilot to
>>> control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
>>> Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a learned skill. Add
>>> Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive cables are
>>> automatically replaced with a quadrant and the discussion is over.
>>>
>>> Just food for thought which no one commented on after the valuable
>>> observation.
>>>
>>> John Cox
>>>
>>> #40600
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
>>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
>>> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
>>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>>
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Mini Jets - Think about the possibiities |
Myth busters proved you could not get an impala airborne, they did get it going fast enough to need a Helicopter to chase it down though. They did this in the pilot #1, can be found here <http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/00to49/episode_11.html>
All jesting aside, when I was in the Navy and first heard about this, we all had
the same reaction...I wonder how we can go over to the air side and talk the
guys into trying it, you better believe we would have tried it. We even talked
about putting one on a boat in Newport Harbor and seeing what would happen!
Youth and stupidity go hand in hand!
Dan
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of mgeans@provide.net
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Mini Jets - Think about the possibiities
"Basically VTOL" Tim? Think again and think Space Ship One!
It only took one to lift a 1967 Chevy Impala into the side
of a cliff in '95. See Darwin Award Link below. Click on
"JATO Rocket Car". Have fun browsing afterward! Copy and
paste if the link doesn't work.
http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/index_darwin1995.html
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:36:01 -0600
Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
> <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> I don't know anything about the little jets, but I think
> a set of
> 4 rockets, done la "Fat Albert" (Blue Angels) would be
> kind of
> a cool addition. Could make the RV-10 basically a VTOL.
> ;)
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> jdalton77@comcast.net wrote:
> >There was a short thread on VasnAirforce about these
> mini-jets that some
> >folks are experimenting with. They range from 50-300
> lbs of thrust and
> >run on liguid propane. They're light and small (largest
> one is 44")
> >
> >What, in the opinion of the all of you, could be the use
> of these?
> >Extra lift at takeoff? Faster climb? Emergency engine
> out? dead
> >weight? It doesn't seem like you could carry enough
> fuel for anything
> >but specialized use - but on the other hand - I could
> see some advantages.
> >
> >I don't know how it might work structurally, but the
> thrust is so small
> >it probably could be engineered.
> >
> >Might be nice if you were on floats.
> >
> >Jeff
> >
>
>
> Admin.
>
> page,
>
>
>
>
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: | firewall picture |
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link
attachments:
Picture 002
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: | quandrant picture |
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link
attachments:
Picture 004
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine trouble shoots/Update |
Good job on the troubleshooting.
Kevin
40494
tail/empennage
do not archive
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: Antenna Location |
Bob Archer's Sportcraft wingtip antenna's are gamma antenna's.
If the wingtip antenna is a gamma antenna, instead of a dipole antenna, do
your comments still apply?
It's my simplistic understanding that a gamma antenna receives on the ground
plane, which is the airframe of the aircraft. That's why it is so important
to get good electrical contact along a distributed attachment of the base of
the Sportcraft wingtip antenna to the wing skin.
(With the antenna mounted inside the fiberglass wingtip, the wing skin
dimples for the antenna attachment need to have the paint removed for good
electrical contact through the attaching screws.)
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 11/13/2006 4:16:35 AM Pacific Standard Time,
wv4i@bellsouth.net writes:
--> RV10-List message posted by: Link McGarity <wv4i@bellsouth.net>
Seeing comments on antenna location in other threads, I thought a couple
of points have perhaps not been considered. First, I've been involved
with amateur radio for about 25 years, both mobile and fixed ops, and
including from my RV-6. My FCC callsign is WV4I, for the other hams on
this forum.
The problem with wing tip antennas, or antennas not located on the
fuselage or vertical stab leading edge or tip, would seem to be twofold.
One, re the wing tip location, such would likely cause a null in
reception (and transmission) primarily oriented in the direction of the
wing. Also, if the aircraft antenna is of one orientation, e.g.
horizontal, and the target station is vertical oriented (polarized, to
be precise), typically a 20db path loss occurs. Every 3db loss equates
to roughly a 50% drop in signal strength.
Another issue that may arise with antennas mounted parallel to metal
structures is that they become detuned. As an antenna is "cut" to
resonate at a desired frequency, with a given bandwidth, e.g. 118-136mhz
at <2:1 SWR, this resonance point can be be altered, diminished, or even
eliminated by nearby metal objects. Antenna resonance is important to
good receiver or transceiver performance, and in the case of
transmitters without high SWR protective circuitry, high SWR can damage
final output transistors.
This gets to be a very complex subject quickly, and I'm no electrical
engineer, but just some thoughts to consider on antenna placement.
Link McGarity
#40622
RV6/N42GF/flying, non-builder
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: | Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
More food for thought on this, if you ever plan on flying formation,
Verniers are not allowed as they do not allow quick enough throttle
changes, you will have to use regular push pulls or the quadrant. This
was stated at the ground schools for the FFI.
I personally plan on formation with the Ohio Valley Rvators, so make the
best choice for the type of flying you plan on doing.
Dan
RV10E (N289DT)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables
were in a different location (they probably can be the
same from quadrant to vernier), but that I wanted to use
eyeball passthroughs because the dual snap-bushing thing just
didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some
would disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum rivets
holding the firewall on though), but it's got to be better than
snap bushings. They allow you to start angling that cable
so it comes out of the firewall at an angle that you wish for
better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill the bore
to your cable size for perfect fit.
The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3
holes out for snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted
to use the 2 outer holes and then drill another below them
in the middle. (the holes would run together if I drilled
all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area
got chewed up. Had I not pre-drilled the holes, it would
have been simple, but I made the mistake of first attempting
snap bushings.
So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal
shop where they gave me some stainless scrap, and bought
a "patch" that I could drill properly, and then rivet and
red RTV in place to make it all good again. I got slightly
thicker stainless as well.
For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not
going with the quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like
them here too if they don't work like 220RV. But you can
be reassured that the quadrant offers smoothness and precision...
and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution
Kelly. If you haven't flown one (of this type specifically,
it's worth a try. They're nice.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Paul Grimstad wrote:
> Changes?
>
> Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil cooler recess for
> cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells us again how
> much he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the spring of 05'
> I was planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed up at the
EAA105
> fly in. That changed my mind. Life is all about change, isn't it? Tim
> how did you cap off those cable holes? I remember you drilled them out
> and then later found the quadrant runs in a different location?
>
> Bill DeRouchey, I am going to be in Santa Cruz for Thanksgiving. Will
> you be around home? I'd love to see the paint job.
>
> Paul Grimstad
> RV10 40450 with holes to fill
> Portland, OR 97219
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
> A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went unresponded
> to. For those few who have not made their decision or are still
> open to input on the subject of choice. It has been said that the
> Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item first learned by
> instruction or experience is most often retained. Example, most
> pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing. Those who learn on
> Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with Vernier cables, tend
> to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have flown High
> Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with throttle quadrants
on
> turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose throttle
quadrants.
>
> The choice of throttle quadrants allows the competent pilot to
> control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
> Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a learned skill.
Add
> Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive cables are
> automatically replaced with a quadrant and the discussion is over.
>
> Just food for thought which no one commented on after the valuable
> observation.
>
> John Cox
>
> #40600
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mini Jets - Think about the possibiities |
There is plenty of evidence that the alleged Jato Rocket car never was
more than someone's idea of a good ficitional story. Living near where
it allegedly happened, with statements from the DPS(Highway Patrol)
that there was never such an event, along with the impossible physics,
as in no lifting surface on a car to generate anywhere near enough
lift, lack of sufficient thrust, etc, you can just dump all references
to that story as hogwash.
On 11/13/06, Lloyd, Daniel R. <LloydDR@wernerco.com> wrote:
>
> Myth busters proved you could not get an impala airborne, they did get it going fast enough to need a Helicopter to chase it down though. They did this in the pilot #1, can be found here <http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/00to49/episode_11.html>
> All jesting aside, when I was in the Navy and first heard about this, we all
had the same reaction...I wonder how we can go over to the air side and talk the
guys into trying it, you better believe we would have tried it. We even talked
about putting one on a boat in Newport Harbor and seeing what would happen!
Youth and stupidity go hand in hand!
> Dan
>
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: | Antenna Location |
It is great to have a clear, concise and valued response to this easily
misunderstood subject of RF propagation and SWR.
John Cox
#40600
N49CX and amateur W7COX
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Link McGarity
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 4:14 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Antenna Location
Seeing comments on antenna location in other threads, I thought a couple
of points have perhaps not been considered. First, I've been involved
with amateur radio for about 25 years, both mobile and fixed ops, and
including from my RV-6. My FCC callsign is WV4I, for the other hams on
this forum.
The problem with wing tip antennas, or antennas not located on the
fuselage or vertical stab leading edge or tip, would seem to be twofold.
One, re the wing tip location, such would likely cause a null in
reception (and transmission) primarily oriented in the direction of the
wing. Also, if the aircraft antenna is of one orientation, e.g.
horizontal, and the target station is vertical oriented (polarized, to
be precise), typically a 20db path loss occurs. Every 3db loss equates
to roughly a 50% drop in signal strength.
Another issue that may arise with antennas mounted parallel to metal
structures is that they become detuned. As an antenna is "cut" to
resonate at a desired frequency, with a given bandwidth, e.g. 118-136mhz
at <2:1 SWR, this resonance point can be be altered, diminished, or even
eliminated by nearby metal objects. Antenna resonance is important to
good receiver or transceiver performance, and in the case of
transmitters without high SWR protective circuitry, high SWR can damage
final output transistors.
This gets to be a very complex subject quickly, and I'm no electrical
engineer, but just some thoughts to consider on antenna placement.
Link McGarity
#40622
RV6/N42GF/flying, non-builder
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: | First impression, tailcone/main fuse joint |
I spent this weekend drilling and dimpling the holes which make up the joint
of the rear and main fuse.
I was shocked at how little material there is that overlap this area.
three inches of the main fuse longeron and it appears the rest is a skin
joint.
The baggage floor ribs join up with the F1006 bulkhead, but the bellcrank
ribs in the tailcone don't even directly join with these baggage floor ribs.
Non of the tailcone stringers transition across this joint. I realize the
fiberglass top will add a lot of strength, but other than that, it seems the
skins are taking all the loads and relaying on shear strength. I frightens
me to think about removing the support under the tail once all is complete.
Next, thinking about a good load placed on the tail when hitting turbulence
at high speed.
Even my wife looked at it with her non engineering background and said, is
that all that hold the tail on.
What is my dental/engineering background missing?
Did any one else feel this way?
JOhn G. 409
Do Not Archive
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: Antenna Location |
Your comments are certainly on target for com antennas. However, for
nav antennas you NEED horizontal polarization, as all VOR and GS
signals are horizontally polarized. Fuselage is no more blanking of a
wing tip than it is blanking for antenna on vertical fin recieving
signal below the aircraft.
On 11/13/06, Link McGarity <wv4i@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The problem with wing tip antennas, or antennas not located on the
> fuselage or vertical stab leading edge or tip, would seem to be twofold.
> One, re the wing tip location, such would likely cause a null in
> reception (and transmission) primarily oriented in the direction of the
> wing. Also, if the aircraft antenna is of one orientation, e.g.
> horizontal, and the target station is vertical oriented (polarized, to
> be precise), typically a 20db path loss occurs. Every 3db loss equates
> to roughly a 50% drop in signal strength.
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: | Re: First impression, tailcone/main fuse joint |
John, Did you find in your parts list a part number
BG-10552? That's 4 sticks of wrigley's bubble gum
that's used to make the remainder of the bond between
sections. ;)
I don't think you have to worry about pulling your tail
stand out, having flown in turbulence and taken a good
hit once, but you're definitely right that to an
untrained eye like mine it seems strange. The engineers
hopefully knew everything they needed to on that one.
FWIW, I would think the skins take a lot of load, but
perhaps it's got plenty of strength.
One thing to note though, that I've seen here on this
list before (even recently) is that it might not be
a good idea to cut in external access panels or
cut stringers in that area without doing a bunch of
beefing up.
Since it hasn't crashed yet, I'm just hoping that by
maintaining good flying attitude, and clearance from
T-storms, that I can never get a chance to test
the ultimate load strength of that joint. ;)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John Gonzalez wrote:
>
> I spent this weekend drilling and dimpling the holes which make up the
> joint of the rear and main fuse.
>
> I was shocked at how little material there is that overlap this area.
>
> three inches of the main fuse longeron and it appears the rest is a skin
> joint.
>
> The baggage floor ribs join up with the F1006 bulkhead, but the
> bellcrank ribs in the tailcone don't even directly join with these
> baggage floor ribs. Non of the tailcone stringers transition across
> this joint. I realize the fiberglass top will add a lot of strength,
> but other than that, it seems the skins are taking all the loads and
> relaying on shear strength. I frightens me to think about removing the
> support under the tail once all is complete. Next, thinking about a
> good load placed on the tail when hitting turbulence at high speed.
>
> Even my wife looked at it with her non engineering background and said,
> is that all that hold the tail on.
>
> What is my dental/engineering background missing?
>
> Did any one else feel this way?
>
> JOhn G. 409
>
> Do Not Archive
>
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: | Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
I may have no clue what I am talking about, but I think the throttle is a
standard Push-Pull in this sense, since there is no button you push to move
it and you can't screw-unscrew to tweak the setting. The prop and mixture
are the Vernier Cables. Again, I am talking in the context that you just
wrote, not in the technical meaning of Push-Pull versus Vernier.
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 Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
More food for thought on this, if you ever plan on flying formation,
Verniers are not allowed as they do not allow quick enough throttle
changes, you will have to use regular push pulls or the quadrant. This
was stated at the ground schools for the FFI.
I personally plan on formation with the Ohio Valley Rvators, so make the
best choice for the type of flying you plan on doing.
Dan
RV10E (N289DT)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables
were in a different location (they probably can be the
same from quadrant to vernier), but that I wanted to use
eyeball passthroughs because the dual snap-bushing thing just
didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some
would disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum rivets
holding the firewall on though), but it's got to be better than
snap bushings. They allow you to start angling that cable
so it comes out of the firewall at an angle that you wish for
better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill the bore
to your cable size for perfect fit.
The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3
holes out for snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted
to use the 2 outer holes and then drill another below them
in the middle. (the holes would run together if I drilled
all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area
got chewed up. Had I not pre-drilled the holes, it would
have been simple, but I made the mistake of first attempting
snap bushings.
So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal
shop where they gave me some stainless scrap, and bought
a "patch" that I could drill properly, and then rivet and
red RTV in place to make it all good again. I got slightly
thicker stainless as well.
For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not
going with the quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like
them here too if they don't work like 220RV. But you can
be reassured that the quadrant offers smoothness and precision...
and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution
Kelly. If you haven't flown one (of this type specifically,
it's worth a try. They're nice.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Paul Grimstad wrote:
> Changes?
>
> Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil cooler recess for
> cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells us again how
> much he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the spring of 05'
> I was planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed up at the
EAA105
> fly in. That changed my mind. Life is all about change, isn't it? Tim
> how did you cap off those cable holes? I remember you drilled them out
> and then later found the quadrant runs in a different location?
>
> Bill DeRouchey, I am going to be in Santa Cruz for Thanksgiving. Will
> you be around home? I'd love to see the paint job.
>
> Paul Grimstad
> RV10 40450 with holes to fill
> Portland, OR 97219
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
> A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went unresponded
> to. For those few who have not made their decision or are still
> open to input on the subject of choice. It has been said that the
> Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item first learned by
> instruction or experience is most often retained. Example, most
> pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing. Those who learn on
> Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with Vernier cables, tend
> to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have flown High
> Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with throttle quadrants
on
> turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose throttle
quadrants.
>
> The choice of throttle quadrants allows the competent pilot to
> control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
> Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a learned skill.
Add
> Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive cables are
> automatically replaced with a quadrant and the discussion is over.
>
> Just food for thought which no one commented on after the valuable
> observation.
>
> John Cox
>
> #40600
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
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: Mini Jets - Think about the possibiities |
Kelly,
I would agree with you. I didn't know that Mythbusters
repeated the event and failed.
Back in '95 I was on the tail end of 4 yrs in the USMC in
Tustin, CA and had seen Jatos in action so it seemed
feasable. I think that in this timeframe NASCAR researched
and began to mandate the roof spoiler to keep cars from
going airborne in reverse when in a spin not related to
this incident but the NASCAR expirience seems to validate
"airborneability" (new word in Matthew's Dictionary of
wordisms) Before Mythbusters it seems like a believeable
crock.
I did have some crazies from my Helicopter squadron who
took 2 8' pallet rollers from the floor of our CH-53E's and
proceeded to attach them to a 4x8 sheet of plywood and sail
along one of the said flats at about 65-70 mph. They took
pictures of thier stupidity too so I'm with you there
Lloyd.
Matt
Builder Wanna-be
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:50:24 -0700
"Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
> <apilot2@gmail.com>
>
> There is plenty of evidence that the alleged Jato Rocket
> car never was
> more than someone's idea of a good ficitional story.
> Living near where
> it allegedly happened, with statements from the
> DPS(Highway Patrol)
> that there was never such an event, along with the
> impossible physics,
> as in no lifting surface on a car to generate anywhere
> near enough
> lift, lack of sufficient thrust, etc, you can just dump
> all references
> to that story as hogwash.
>
> On 11/13/06, Lloyd, Daniel R. <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
> wrote:
> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
> >
> >Myth busters proved you could not get an impala
> airborne, they did get it going fast enough to need a
> Helicopter to chase it down though. They did this in the
> pilot #1, can be found here
>
<http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/00to49/episode_11.html>
> >All jesting aside, when I was in the Navy and first
> heard about this, we all had the same reaction...I wonder
> how we can go over to the air side and talk the guys into
> trying it, you better believe we would have tried it. We
> even talked about putting one on a boat in Newport Harbor
> and seeing what would happen! Youth and stupidity go hand
> in hand!
> >Dan
> >
>
>
> Admin.
>
> page,
>
>
>
>
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: | Fire suppression (was quadrant picture) |
David, doth I see a red canister of fire suppression beneath the quadrant!
Tell me more! Halon? Plumbing? Weight? Been wondering what to do with
same.
John Jessen
#40328
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:39 AM
Subject: RV10-List: quandrant picture
Picture 004
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
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: | Firewall indent (was quadrant picture) |
Anyone come up with some clever use for the indent that Van's designed into
the firewall for the standard oil filter? Just wondering if something
interesting could be installed there.
John Jessen
#40328
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:38 AM
Subject: RV10-List: firewall picture
Picture 002
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
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: | Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
The reason I put it out there, is that several pilots came to the annual
FFI clinic and had vernier throttles, not just mixture and prop. The
ones that had this could not fly formation because they had the push
button to deal with. I was just posting the caveat for those that buy
the cables aftermarket because I have seen several RV's with vernier for
throttle.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:58 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
I may have no clue what I am talking about, but I think the throttle is
a
standard Push-Pull in this sense, since there is no button you push to
move
it and you can't screw-unscrew to tweak the setting. The prop and
mixture
are the Vernier Cables. Again, I am talking in the context that you
just
wrote, not in the technical meaning of Push-Pull versus Vernier.
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 Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
<LloydDR@wernerco.com>
More food for thought on this, if you ever plan on flying formation,
Verniers are not allowed as they do not allow quick enough throttle
changes, you will have to use regular push pulls or the quadrant. This
was stated at the ground schools for the FFI.
I personally plan on formation with the Ohio Valley Rvators, so make the
best choice for the type of flying you plan on doing.
Dan
RV10E (N289DT)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables
were in a different location (they probably can be the
same from quadrant to vernier), but that I wanted to use
eyeball passthroughs because the dual snap-bushing thing just
didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some
would disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum rivets
holding the firewall on though), but it's got to be better than
snap bushings. They allow you to start angling that cable
so it comes out of the firewall at an angle that you wish for
better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill the bore
to your cable size for perfect fit.
The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3
holes out for snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted
to use the 2 outer holes and then drill another below them
in the middle. (the holes would run together if I drilled
all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area
got chewed up. Had I not pre-drilled the holes, it would
have been simple, but I made the mistake of first attempting
snap bushings.
So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal
shop where they gave me some stainless scrap, and bought
a "patch" that I could drill properly, and then rivet and
red RTV in place to make it all good again. I got slightly
thicker stainless as well.
For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not
going with the quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like
them here too if they don't work like 220RV. But you can
be reassured that the quadrant offers smoothness and precision...
and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution
Kelly. If you haven't flown one (of this type specifically,
it's worth a try. They're nice.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Paul Grimstad wrote:
> Changes?
>
> Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil cooler recess for
> cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells us again how
> much he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the spring of 05'
> I was planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed up at the
EAA105
> fly in. That changed my mind. Life is all about change, isn't it? Tim
> how did you cap off those cable holes? I remember you drilled them out
> and then later found the quadrant runs in a different location?
>
> Bill DeRouchey, I am going to be in Santa Cruz for Thanksgiving. Will
> you be around home? I'd love to see the paint job.
>
> Paul Grimstad
> RV10 40450 with holes to fill
> Portland, OR 97219
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
> A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went unresponded
> to. For those few who have not made their decision or are still
> open to input on the subject of choice. It has been said that the
> Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item first learned by
> instruction or experience is most often retained. Example, most
> pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing. Those who learn on
> Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with Vernier cables, tend
> to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have flown High
> Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with throttle quadrants
on
> turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose throttle
quadrants.
>
> The choice of throttle quadrants allows the competent pilot to
> control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
> Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a learned skill.
Add
> Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive cables are
> automatically replaced with a quadrant and the discussion is over.
>
> Just food for thought which no one commented on after the valuable
> observation.
>
> John Cox
>
> #40600
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
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: | Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
Actually, and I'd like to fly formation, I'm confused about this myself. I
want vernier, but aren't they technically push/pull? I'm missing something
here, and, yeah, I know it's a brain, but....need some edification. I did
look this up on the Van's site, and I have flown a C-182 a bunch with
Vernier controls, but I'm still confused given that if you have your hand on
the throttle knob, is it the pushing in of the little button that is the
no-no here?
John Jessen
#40328
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:58 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
I may have no clue what I am talking about, but I think the throttle is a
standard Push-Pull in this sense, since there is no button you push to move
it and you can't screw-unscrew to tweak the setting. The prop and mixture
are the Vernier Cables. Again, I am talking in the context that you just
wrote, not in the technical meaning of Push-Pull versus Vernier.
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 Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
--> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
More food for thought on this, if you ever plan on flying formation,
Verniers are not allowed as they do not allow quick enough throttle changes,
you will have to use regular push pulls or the quadrant. This was stated at
the ground schools for the FFI.
I personally plan on formation with the Ohio Valley Rvators, so make the
best choice for the type of flying you plan on doing.
Dan
RV10E (N289DT)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables were in a
different location (they probably can be the same from quadrant to vernier),
but that I wanted to use eyeball passthroughs because the dual snap-bushing
thing just didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some would
disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum rivets holding the
firewall on though), but it's got to be better than snap bushings. They
allow you to start angling that cable so it comes out of the firewall at an
angle that you wish for better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill the
bore to your cable size for perfect fit.
The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3 holes out for
snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted to use the 2 outer holes and
then drill another below them in the middle. (the holes would run together
if I drilled
all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area got chewed up. Had I
not pre-drilled the holes, it would have been simple, but I made the mistake
of first attempting snap bushings.
So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal shop where they
gave me some stainless scrap, and bought a "patch" that I could drill
properly, and then rivet and red RTV in place to make it all good again. I
got slightly thicker stainless as well.
For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not going with the
quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like them here too if they don't
work like 220RV. But you can be reassured that the quadrant offers
smoothness and precision...
and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution Kelly. If you
haven't flown one (of this type specifically, it's worth a try. They're
nice.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Paul Grimstad wrote:
> Changes?
>
> Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil cooler recess for
> cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells us again how
> much he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the spring of 05'
> I was planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed up at the
EAA105
> fly in. That changed my mind. Life is all about change, isn't it? Tim
> how did you cap off those cable holes? I remember you drilled them out
> and then later found the quadrant runs in a different location?
>
> Bill DeRouchey, I am going to be in Santa Cruz for Thanksgiving. Will
> you be around home? I'd love to see the paint job.
>
> Paul Grimstad
> RV10 40450 with holes to fill
> Portland, OR 97219
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
> A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went unresponded
> to. For those few who have not made their decision or are still
> open to input on the subject of choice. It has been said that the
> Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item first learned by
> instruction or experience is most often retained. Example, most
> pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing. Those who learn on
> Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with Vernier cables, tend
> to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have flown High
> Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with throttle quadrants
on
> turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose throttle
quadrants.
>
> The choice of throttle quadrants allows the competent pilot to
> control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
> Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a learned skill.
Add
> Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive cables are
> automatically replaced with a quadrant and the discussion is over.
>
> Just food for thought which no one commented on after the valuable
> observation.
>
> John Cox
>
> #40600
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
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 |
|
All,
I don't know if this subject has come up but here goes.
My wife (if we're allowed to bring them up in the list) was
interestingly peering over my shoulder when her rubber
stamping chat room threads turned to ugly divorces, single
moms, the coming holidays and the wickedness of the male
species. She said that my RV-10 list had to be less
depressing than hers as she and I are very happily married.
She did bring up a good point. Has there ever been a
string about the affects of such a project on the family?
In the year+ of lurking I had to admit that I had not.
Building a plane is a huge family commitment and takes
hundreds/thousands of hours from family.
I am 35 married and our latest child came a month ago which
makes 2 under 2 years old. I'm leaning toward building but
am currently in the midst of a career change that will
better allow me funding to build where my position I'm
exiting would have taken some time. I still have the
build/buy question in my head though. We may expand to 3
kids which will make the -10 difficult and my flop to the
Murphy line to get 4+2 seating from their recently released
Yukon which shares the Moose fuselage (thus seating) with
different powerplant and increased wing sq/ft. Does anyone
have a larger family than the -10 can hold. (Deems here's
where your input would equal E.F. Hutton's back in the day)
We would be interested in responses on affects on family
and maybe what was done to incorporate the building process
into family life/involvement.
I would also like anyone who is on the other side of the
build/buy decision to add thier $.02.
As an exiting business owner working ~65 hrs/wk it seems
difficult to fit in a kit. But my career change hopefully
will afford me more time as it will money.
Just fishing here; if anyone has or knows of someone who
has expirience with international employment and what one
should be wary of when approaching such an opportunty I
would be very interested in some offline dialog.
Thank you,
Matt Geans
Builder Wanna-be
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: Fire suppression (was quadrant picture) |
The Halon bottle is a 7.5 pound bottle from Phoenix Fire Suppression
systems. The activation handle has two AN fittings. In my case I plugged
one and the other goes to a firewall bulkhead fitting. Forward of the
firewall there will be a nozzle on top of the engine to spray the inside
of the cowl. There will be a bulkhead fitting inside the fuel injection
airbox with a safetyed plug and a 40 hole in it.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Jessen
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:10 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Fire suppression (was quadrant picture)
David, doth I see a red canister of fire suppression beneath the
quadrant! Tell me more! Halon? Plumbing? Weight? Been wondering
what to do with same.
John Jessen
#40328
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:39 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: quandrant picture
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link
attachments:
Picture 004
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may
--
Checked by Release Date: 11/11/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
11/11/2006
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: | Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
Correct, what they do not want is you have to push something to get free
movement of the throttle, when aircraft are this close together small
changes make big results. What they do not want to have happen is a
mid-air collision based on the fact you could not retard the throttle
quick enough because your thumb or palm slipped from the button. When I
have observed others flying in the wingman position, the throttle
changes are occurring on a continual basis, and a vernier would quickly
become a safety of flight issue.
Remember, Stu put together the course and the FFI certification program,
presented it to the FAA, and is putting his name on the line for the
safety of all of us and our ability to fly in waivered air space. We
need to follow those rules, and be as safe as possible. It is not to say
a vernier on the throttle, in regular flight is any less safe, just that
it is not to be used for formation flying.
Dan
#40269
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:35 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
Actually, and I'd like to fly formation, I'm confused about this myself.
I
want vernier, but aren't they technically push/pull? I'm missing
something
here, and, yeah, I know it's a brain, but....need some edification. I
did
look this up on the Van's site, and I have flown a C-182 a bunch with
Vernier controls, but I'm still confused given that if you have your
hand on
the throttle knob, is it the pushing in of the little button that is the
no-no here?
John Jessen
#40328
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:58 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
I may have no clue what I am talking about, but I think the throttle is
a
standard Push-Pull in this sense, since there is no button you push to
move
it and you can't screw-unscrew to tweak the setting. The prop and
mixture
are the Vernier Cables. Again, I am talking in the context that you
just
wrote, not in the technical meaning of Push-Pull versus Vernier.
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 Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
--> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
More food for thought on this, if you ever plan on flying formation,
Verniers are not allowed as they do not allow quick enough throttle
changes,
you will have to use regular push pulls or the quadrant. This was stated
at
the ground schools for the FFI.
I personally plan on formation with the Ohio Valley Rvators, so make the
best choice for the type of flying you plan on doing.
Dan
RV10E (N289DT)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables were in a
different location (they probably can be the same from quadrant to
vernier),
but that I wanted to use eyeball passthroughs because the dual
snap-bushing
thing just didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some
would
disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum rivets holding the
firewall on though), but it's got to be better than snap bushings. They
allow you to start angling that cable so it comes out of the firewall at
an
angle that you wish for better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill
the
bore to your cable size for perfect fit.
The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3 holes out
for
snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted to use the 2 outer holes
and
then drill another below them in the middle. (the holes would run
together
if I drilled
all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area got chewed up.
Had I
not pre-drilled the holes, it would have been simple, but I made the
mistake
of first attempting snap bushings.
So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal shop where
they
gave me some stainless scrap, and bought a "patch" that I could drill
properly, and then rivet and red RTV in place to make it all good again.
I
got slightly thicker stainless as well.
For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not going with
the
quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like them here too if they
don't
work like 220RV. But you can be reassured that the quadrant offers
smoothness and precision...
and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution Kelly. If
you
haven't flown one (of this type specifically, it's worth a try. They're
nice.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Paul Grimstad wrote:
> Changes?
>
> Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil cooler recess for
> cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells us again how
> much he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the spring of 05'
> I was planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed up at the
EAA105
> fly in. That changed my mind. Life is all about change, isn't it? Tim
> how did you cap off those cable holes? I remember you drilled them out
> and then later found the quadrant runs in a different location?
>
> Bill DeRouchey, I am going to be in Santa Cruz for Thanksgiving. Will
> you be around home? I'd love to see the paint job.
>
> Paul Grimstad
> RV10 40450 with holes to fill
> Portland, OR 97219
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
> A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went unresponded
> to. For those few who have not made their decision or are still
> open to input on the subject of choice. It has been said that the
> Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item first learned by
> instruction or experience is most often retained. Example, most
> pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing. Those who learn on
> Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with Vernier cables, tend
> to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have flown High
> Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with throttle quadrants
on
> turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose throttle
quadrants.
>
> The choice of throttle quadrants allows the competent pilot to
> control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
> Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a learned skill.
Add
> Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive cables are
> automatically replaced with a quadrant and the discussion is over.
>
> Just food for thought which no one commented on after the valuable
> observation.
>
> John Cox
>
> #40600
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
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 |
|
Matt,
I'm in the military and have been working 70+ hour weeks for the 3 years
I've been building. Breaks have included the normal deployments,etc. I also
have two young kids to throw in the mix. Here's my take on building, family
life, and long work hours...
First, RV-10 versus big family. Several guys have made the rear seat into a
bench that easily fits 3 kids. More than that and you'd have trouble.
Second, finishing a kit. I completely disagree that long hours makes
finishing a kit difficult. Will guys like us compete with some of the early
builders in completion time? Heck no (Randy/Tim/Jesse/etc, I hate you
guys... :-) ) I think it really boils down to whether you enjoy building.
If you do, put in the 1 or 2 hours you have available each week. You may or
may not have large numbers of hours available on weekends to build depending
on family needs. I originally planned to be flying in 2 years. 3 years
later, I'm finishing up my wings. Eventually I'll run out of parts and have
a flying airplane, even if I only get a couple hours a week in the shop. But
I'll still have a happy family at the end. I think where we get in trouble
is when we spend time in the shop at the EXPENSE of our families... I may be
violating a man-law here, but I've found the best way to keep my family
supportive of the build (I'm not blessed with a wife that likes spending ANY
time in the shop) is to LISTEN to them. They'll let you know when daddy's
not doing what they think he should be... Bottomline, don't set a deadline
and even the busiest guy can finish a kit. (also, as soon as I let my 2-year
goal go away, building became a fun hobby again instead of a second job...)
Just my $0.02 worth... If you want to build, buy the empennage kit and give
it a shot... I did and have never regretted it (even when watching the other
Las Vegas builders planes taking shape while mine SSLLOOWWLLYY get's
assembled...
John
#40208 Wings (still)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
mgeans@provide.net
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:02 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Kits and Family
All,
I don't know if this subject has come up but here goes.
My wife (if we're allowed to bring them up in the list) was interestingly
peering over my shoulder when her rubber stamping chat room threads turned
to ugly divorces, single moms, the coming holidays and the wickedness of the
male species. She said that my RV-10 list had to be less depressing than
hers as she and I are very happily married.
She did bring up a good point. Has there ever been a string about the
affects of such a project on the family?
In the year+ of lurking I had to admit that I had not.
Building a plane is a huge family commitment and takes hundreds/thousands of
hours from family.
I am 35 married and our latest child came a month ago which makes 2 under 2
years old. I'm leaning toward building but am currently in the midst of a
career change that will better allow me funding to build where my position
I'm exiting would have taken some time. I still have the build/buy question
in my head though. We may expand to 3 kids which will make the -10
difficult and my flop to the Murphy line to get 4+2 seating from their
recently released Yukon which shares the Moose fuselage (thus seating) with
different powerplant and increased wing sq/ft. Does anyone have a larger
family than the -10 can hold. (Deems here's where your input would equal
E.F. Hutton's back in the day)
We would be interested in responses on affects on family and maybe what was
done to incorporate the building process into family life/involvement.
I would also like anyone who is on the other side of the build/buy decision
to add thier $.02.
As an exiting business owner working ~65 hrs/wk it seems difficult to fit in
a kit. But my career change hopefully will afford me more time as it will
money.
Just fishing here; if anyone has or knows of someone who has expirience with
international employment and what one should be wary of when approaching
such an opportunty I would be very interested in some offline dialog.
Thank you,
Matt Geans
Builder Wanna-be
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 |
|
Matt, I'm building alone and have no age appropriate kids to this discussion
(mine are in their 20's), but, man, I'd let things settle for a bit if
you're moving to a new job, etc. You also might find a "good" deal on a
Bonanza 36 or even a Cherokee 6, if you want to haul all the little ones and
get to flying. The commitment and time of the RV-10 with family is best
answered by such dynamos as Tim Olson and others. I just know that it is
huge and should not come before family and job. Several builders have had
their kids helping, but sounds as if yours are not of that age, yet. The
wife needs to be extremely supportive and enthusiastic, because it is a long
journey. As for the Murphy, if you think these 10's take time.........
John Jessen
#40328
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
mgeans@provide.net
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:02 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Kits and Family
All,
I don't know if this subject has come up but here goes.
My wife (if we're allowed to bring them up in the list) was interestingly
peering over my shoulder when her rubber stamping chat room threads turned
to ugly divorces, single moms, the coming holidays and the wickedness of the
male species. She said that my RV-10 list had to be less depressing than
hers as she and I are very happily married.
She did bring up a good point. Has there ever been a string about the
affects of such a project on the family?
In the year+ of lurking I had to admit that I had not.
Building a plane is a huge family commitment and takes hundreds/thousands of
hours from family.
I am 35 married and our latest child came a month ago which makes 2 under 2
years old. I'm leaning toward building but am currently in the midst of a
career change that will better allow me funding to build where my position
I'm exiting would have taken some time. I still have the build/buy question
in my head though. We may expand to 3 kids which will make the -10
difficult and my flop to the Murphy line to get 4+2 seating from their
recently released Yukon which shares the Moose fuselage (thus seating) with
different powerplant and increased wing sq/ft. Does anyone have a larger
family than the -10 can hold. (Deems here's where your input would equal
E.F. Hutton's back in the day)
We would be interested in responses on affects on family and maybe what was
done to incorporate the building process into family life/involvement.
I would also like anyone who is on the other side of the build/buy decision
to add thier $.02.
As an exiting business owner working ~65 hrs/wk it seems difficult to fit in
a kit. But my career change hopefully will afford me more time as it will
money.
Just fishing here; if anyone has or knows of someone who has expirience with
international employment and what one should be wary of when approaching
such an opportunty I would be very interested in some offline dialog.
Thank you,
Matt Geans
Builder Wanna-be
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
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 |
|
There have been a lower than statistical rate of divorces within the
RV-10 Group. James McClow excluded. Only three builders have died and
not from the kit process. One only has to look at pictures of OSH or the
VANS picnic and see families like the Olsons' to know that inclusion of
the family is a smart and efficient development technique for acceptance
of the final product. Read Dan Checkoway's post on the value of wives
and their inclusion. http://www.rvproject.com/wife.html
Ever seen how often Tim's daughters are smiling or asleep.
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/flights/20060226/index.html
Being 57, grey haired, kids are now adults, I do not qualify for
consideration. The journey should be shared. Developing Airshows in
the 80's and 90's created a phenomena called AIDS (Airshow Induced
Divorce Syndrome). Don't go there.
Enjoy your 30s and 40s, get the family involved. Talk to Tim.
John Cox
#600
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
mgeans@provide.net
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:02 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Kits and Family
All,
I don't know if this subject has come up but here goes.
My wife (if we're allowed to bring them up in the list) was
interestingly peering over my shoulder when her rubber
stamping chat room threads turned to ugly divorces, single
moms, the coming holidays and the wickedness of the male
species. She said that my RV-10 list had to be less
depressing than hers as she and I are very happily married.
She did bring up a good point. Has there ever been a
string about the affects of such a project on the family?
In the year+ of lurking I had to admit that I had not.
Building a plane is a huge family commitment and takes
hundreds/thousands of hours from family.
I am 35 married and our latest child came a month ago which
makes 2 under 2 years old. I'm leaning toward building but
am currently in the midst of a career change that will
better allow me funding to build where my position I'm
exiting would have taken some time. I still have the
build/buy question in my head though. We may expand to 3
kids which will make the -10 difficult and my flop to the
Murphy line to get 4+2 seating from their recently released
Yukon which shares the Moose fuselage (thus seating) with
different powerplant and increased wing sq/ft. Does anyone
have a larger family than the -10 can hold. (Deems here's
where your input would equal E.F. Hutton's back in the day)
We would be interested in responses on affects on family
and maybe what was done to incorporate the building process
into family life/involvement.
I would also like anyone who is on the other side of the
build/buy decision to add thier $.02.
As an exiting business owner working ~65 hrs/wk it seems
difficult to fit in a kit. But my career change hopefully
will afford me more time as it will money.
Just fishing here; if anyone has or knows of someone who
has expirience with international employment and what one
should be wary of when approaching such an opportunty I
would be very interested in some offline dialog.
Thank you,
Matt Geans
Builder Wanna-be
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kits and Family |
The problem here is dealing with rubber stampers....aviation enthusiasts are much
easier to get along with than rubber stampers... ;)
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
I guess there are some planes that a vernier throttle makes sense, but
for a long cross country machine that you want to operate as
efficiently as possible, after takeoff the only throttle use will be
for descent to landing...cruising at altitudes that power is either
controlled by rpm or mixture or both. I'm happiest with straight push
pull throttle and vernier mixture and vernier prop. I think the point
about verniers and formation flying is very valid. Wonder how the
Bonanza folks handle that issue for their OSH arrival. I know they
practice formation flying for that, but perhaps at greater spacing.
Seems like they are one of the more common vernier throttle equipped
birds.
On 11/13/06, Lloyd, Daniel R. <LloydDR@wernerco.com> wrote:
>
> Correct, what they do not want is you have to push something to get free
> movement of the throttle, when aircraft are this close together small
> changes make big results. What they do not want to have happen is a
> mid-air collision based on the fact you could not retard the throttle
> quick enough because your thumb or palm slipped from the button. When I
> have observed others flying in the wingman position, the throttle
> changes are occurring on a continual basis, and a vernier would quickly
> become a safety of flight issue.
> Remember, Stu put together the course and the FFI certification program,
> presented it to the FAA, and is putting his name on the line for the
> safety of all of us and our ability to fly in waivered air space. We
> need to follow those rules, and be as safe as possible. It is not to say
> a vernier on the throttle, in regular flight is any less safe, just that
> it is not to be used for formation flying.
> Dan
> #40269
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:35 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
>
> Actually, and I'd like to fly formation, I'm confused about this myself.
> I
> want vernier, but aren't they technically push/pull? I'm missing
> something
> here, and, yeah, I know it's a brain, but....need some edification. I
> did
> look this up on the Van's site, and I have flown a C-182 a bunch with
> Vernier controls, but I'm still confused given that if you have your
> hand on
> the throttle knob, is it the pushing in of the little button that is the
> no-no here?
>
> John Jessen
> #40328
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:58 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
>
> I may have no clue what I am talking about, but I think the throttle is
> a
> standard Push-Pull in this sense, since there is no button you push to
> move
> it and you can't screw-unscrew to tweak the setting. The prop and
> mixture
> are the Vernier Cables. Again, I am talking in the context that you
> just
> wrote, not in the technical meaning of Push-Pull versus Vernier.
>
> 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 Lloyd, Daniel
> R.
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:47 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
> --> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
>
> More food for thought on this, if you ever plan on flying formation,
> Verniers are not allowed as they do not allow quick enough throttle
> changes,
> you will have to use regular push pulls or the quadrant. This was stated
> at
> the ground schools for the FFI.
> I personally plan on formation with the Ohio Valley Rvators, so make the
> best choice for the type of flying you plan on doing.
> Dan
> RV10E (N289DT)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:55 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
>
> Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables were in a
> different location (they probably can be the same from quadrant to
> vernier),
> but that I wanted to use eyeball passthroughs because the dual
> snap-bushing
> thing just didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some
> would
> disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum rivets holding the
> firewall on though), but it's got to be better than snap bushings. They
> allow you to start angling that cable so it comes out of the firewall at
> an
> angle that you wish for better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill
> the
> bore to your cable size for perfect fit.
>
> The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3 holes out
> for
> snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted to use the 2 outer holes
> and
> then drill another below them in the middle. (the holes would run
> together
> if I drilled
> all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
> ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area got chewed up.
> Had I
> not pre-drilled the holes, it would have been simple, but I made the
> mistake
> of first attempting snap bushings.
>
> So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal shop where
> they
> gave me some stainless scrap, and bought a "patch" that I could drill
> properly, and then rivet and red RTV in place to make it all good again.
> I
> got slightly thicker stainless as well.
>
> For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not going with
> the
> quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like them here too if they
> don't
> work like 220RV. But you can be reassured that the quadrant offers
> smoothness and precision...
> and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution Kelly. If
> you
> haven't flown one (of this type specifically, it's worth a try. They're
> nice.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Paul Grimstad wrote:
> > Changes?
> >
> > Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil cooler recess for
> > cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells us again how
> > much he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the spring of 05'
> > I was planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed up at the
> EAA105
> > fly in. That changed my mind. Life is all about change, isn't it? Tim
> > how did you cap off those cable holes? I remember you drilled them out
>
> > and then later found the quadrant runs in a different location?
> >
> > Bill DeRouchey, I am going to be in Santa Cruz for Thanksgiving. Will
> > you be around home? I'd love to see the paint job.
> >
> > Paul Grimstad
> > RV10 40450 with holes to fill
> > Portland, OR 97219
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
> > *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> > *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
> > *Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
> >
> > A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went unresponded
> > to. For those few who have not made their decision or are still
> > open to input on the subject of choice. It has been said that the
> > Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item first learned by
> > instruction or experience is most often retained. Example, most
> > pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing. Those who learn on
> > Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with Vernier cables, tend
> > to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have flown High
> > Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with throttle quadrants
> on
> > turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose throttle
> quadrants.
> >
> > The choice of throttle quadrants allows the competent pilot to
> > control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
> > Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a learned skill.
> Add
> > Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive cables are
> > automatically replaced with a quadrant and the discussion is over.
> >
> > Just food for thought which no one commented on after the valuable
> > observation.
> >
> > John Cox
> >
> > #40600
> >
> > *
> >
> > href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> > href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> > href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
> > href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
> >
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
> .com/Navigator?RV10-List
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
>
>
> --
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>
>
> --
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
So if one has a non-verniered throttle that is push/pull, that would be
okay? And for those with quadrants, is there the Cherokee style (usually
non-effective or non-working for rentals at least) friction knob to make the
levers not move, or have they upgraded the design? I looked at the picture
on Van's and was not seeing the friction knob.
John Jessen
#40328
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:31 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
--> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Correct, what they do not want is you have to push something to get free
movement of the throttle, when aircraft are this close together small
changes make big results. What they do not want to have happen is a mid-air
collision based on the fact you could not retard the throttle quick enough
because your thumb or palm slipped from the button. When I have observed
others flying in the wingman position, the throttle changes are occurring on
a continual basis, and a vernier would quickly become a safety of flight
issue.
Remember, Stu put together the course and the FFI certification program,
presented it to the FAA, and is putting his name on the line for the safety
of all of us and our ability to fly in waivered air space. We need to follow
those rules, and be as safe as possible. It is not to say a vernier on the
throttle, in regular flight is any less safe, just that it is not to be used
for formation flying.
Dan
#40269
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:35 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
Actually, and I'd like to fly formation, I'm confused about this myself.
I
want vernier, but aren't they technically push/pull? I'm missing something
here, and, yeah, I know it's a brain, but....need some edification. I did
look this up on the Van's site, and I have flown a C-182 a bunch with
Vernier controls, but I'm still confused given that if you have your hand on
the throttle knob, is it the pushing in of the little button that is the
no-no here?
John Jessen
#40328
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:58 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
I may have no clue what I am talking about, but I think the throttle is a
standard Push-Pull in this sense, since there is no button you push to move
it and you can't screw-unscrew to tweak the setting. The prop and mixture
are the Vernier Cables. Again, I am talking in the context that you just
wrote, not in the technical meaning of Push-Pull versus Vernier.
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 Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
--> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
More food for thought on this, if you ever plan on flying formation,
Verniers are not allowed as they do not allow quick enough throttle changes,
you will have to use regular push pulls or the quadrant. This was stated at
the ground schools for the FFI.
I personally plan on formation with the Ohio Valley Rvators, so make the
best choice for the type of flying you plan on doing.
Dan
RV10E (N289DT)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables were in a
different location (they probably can be the same from quadrant to vernier),
but that I wanted to use eyeball passthroughs because the dual snap-bushing
thing just didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some would
disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum rivets holding the
firewall on though), but it's got to be better than snap bushings. They
allow you to start angling that cable so it comes out of the firewall at an
angle that you wish for better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill the
bore to your cable size for perfect fit.
The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3 holes out for
snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted to use the 2 outer holes and
then drill another below them in the middle. (the holes would run together
if I drilled
all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area got chewed up.
Had I
not pre-drilled the holes, it would have been simple, but I made the mistake
of first attempting snap bushings.
So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal shop where they
gave me some stainless scrap, and bought a "patch" that I could drill
properly, and then rivet and red RTV in place to make it all good again.
I
got slightly thicker stainless as well.
For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not going with the
quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like them here too if they don't
work like 220RV. But you can be reassured that the quadrant offers
smoothness and precision...
and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution Kelly. If you
haven't flown one (of this type specifically, it's worth a try. They're
nice.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Paul Grimstad wrote:
> Changes?
>
> Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil cooler recess for
> cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells us again how
> much he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the spring of 05'
> I was planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed up at the
EAA105
> fly in. That changed my mind. Life is all about change, isn't it? Tim
> how did you cap off those cable holes? I remember you drilled them out
> and then later found the quadrant runs in a different location?
>
> Bill DeRouchey, I am going to be in Santa Cruz for Thanksgiving. Will
> you be around home? I'd love to see the paint job.
>
> Paul Grimstad
> RV10 40450 with holes to fill
> Portland, OR 97219
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
> A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went unresponded
> to. For those few who have not made their decision or are still
> open to input on the subject of choice. It has been said that the
> Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item first learned by
> instruction or experience is most often retained. Example, most
> pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing. Those who learn on
> Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with Vernier cables, tend
> to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have flown High
> Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with throttle quadrants
on
> turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose throttle
quadrants.
>
> The choice of throttle quadrants allows the competent pilot to
> control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
> Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a learned skill.
Add
> Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive cables are
> automatically replaced with a quadrant and the discussion is over.
>
> Just food for thought which no one commented on after the valuable
> observation.
>
> John Cox
>
> #40600
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
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 |
|
I have often felt this is a subject that does not get the appropriate
amount of attention. My wife would be happy to discuss this with yours
on how we approached this. We have two kids and made the decision
several years ago to build, first a 7 then switched to a 10, once she
realized how much fun flying was. It is definitively a family
commitment, as it takes time away from them, and you have to sell the
benefits of it. My kids have both been actively involved, and they love
it. We tell them they have to build sweat equity, i.e. work for flight
time, it really gets them excited, in addition for each structure they
work on they get to sign it before we close it up, for example they both
got to sign the inside of the HS skins. If everything goes alright
nobody will ever see it, but if an eventual owner opens it up, he/she
will get to see all 4 of my families signatures and the date and age
they worked on it. There is always an argument about who gets to work
with Dad for the magic signing. They both love to cleco, drill and
measure. We have finally gotten to the stage we can sit and make noises,
and we all take turns as PIC. Next month we should be able to apply
power to the panel and that is when it will really start to be fun.
The project has been a point of pride for all of us, everyone in the
neighborhood stops by to see progress, because after all we are the
crazy people building a plane in our garage and they think it will never
fly! We tell them soon. All of the friends of the kids come by and take
a look, they all want to fly in it once it is done. It is surprising the
difference between kids and adults, kids want to, and the adults are
leary...oh well. The boyscouts have been by, and are even talking about
earning their aviation badge, it has gotten them all excited about
flying.
My wife is my riveting partner and the person who supports me most in
the build. It takes a real commitment on both parts, as she has to
shoulder the kids responsibility when I am working in the garage. Her
main statement though is that with the plane she knows exactly where I
am at during the evenings, and she can always take two steps and visit.
She has learned to flush rivet better than I can, giving a half tap when
needed to set the rivet properly. She also gave up her manicure because
it made it difficult to pick up the AN426AD3-3.5 rivets. She said the
trade is that she gets to test the aft CG limit when we go visit Tim
(read Mall of America!).
With that being said it is a big commitment, but one that is easily
integrated into the family. If you do not take the time to sell it and
get the family excited about it, it will make it difficult at best, and
a painful divorce at worst. I think all it takes to finish is
perseverance and the support of your family because they want to see you
succeed.
No matter how full you feel your schedule is, you can shift things and
make it work, all it takes (in my case) is a can do attitude and the
support of a great spouse!
Just my musing's on a boring Monday
Dan
40269
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
mgeans@provide.net
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 1:02 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Kits and Family
All,
I don't know if this subject has come up but here goes.
My wife (if we're allowed to bring them up in the list) was
interestingly peering over my shoulder when her rubber
stamping chat room threads turned to ugly divorces, single
moms, the coming holidays and the wickedness of the male
species. She said that my RV-10 list had to be less
depressing than hers as she and I are very happily married.
She did bring up a good point. Has there ever been a
string about the affects of such a project on the family?
In the year+ of lurking I had to admit that I had not.
Building a plane is a huge family commitment and takes
hundreds/thousands of hours from family.
I am 35 married and our latest child came a month ago which
makes 2 under 2 years old. I'm leaning toward building but
am currently in the midst of a career change that will
better allow me funding to build where my position I'm
exiting would have taken some time. I still have the
build/buy question in my head though. We may expand to 3
kids which will make the -10 difficult and my flop to the
Murphy line to get 4+2 seating from their recently released
Yukon which shares the Moose fuselage (thus seating) with
different powerplant and increased wing sq/ft. Does anyone
have a larger family than the -10 can hold. (Deems here's
where your input would equal E.F. Hutton's back in the day)
We would be interested in responses on affects on family
and maybe what was done to incorporate the building process
into family life/involvement.
I would also like anyone who is on the other side of the
build/buy decision to add thier $.02.
As an exiting business owner working ~65 hrs/wk it seems
difficult to fit in a kit. But my career change hopefully
will afford me more time as it will money.
Just fishing here; if anyone has or knows of someone who
has expirience with international employment and what one
should be wary of when approaching such an opportunty I
would be very interested in some offline dialog.
Thank you,
Matt Geans
Builder Wanna-be
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Lyc Knockoff 92 octane compatable |
Has anyone heard of or had exposure to an experimental
assembled and tested engine with the correct combustion
ration (I think is 8 or 8.5:1) that will allow the use of
92 octane auto fuel?
I met an seasoned hanger flyer once who suggested that I
find the engine that I want to use and then fit an airframe
to it that will suit my needs to alleviate a lot of
headache.
I think Kitplanes has touched on this in the past possibly
with Mftrs as Superior or Titan (engines not kits as in
Tornado or T-51). Don't quote me on the Mftr's as I don't
recall who they were only that they would take the auto
fuel. This could be a promising addition to an airframe
which could pass the time line of avgas extinction. It
would also be cost effective.
This might spark (no pun intended) the auto vs avgas "war"
as I've seen such discussions referred to before.
Matt Geans
Builder Wanna-be
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kits and Family |
You know, the hillarious thing is that you've already got
3 replies from guys name "John". ;)
As far as my opinion goes, I'd have to agree with John Jessen,
as he said it well. The fact that you have plans to have 3
children would really push me to wait and avoid the RV-10.
Wouldn't you feel awful bad when, shortly after you finally
finish your -10, you realize you'll need more seats? Sure
you can build a bench seat, as was suggested, but how long is
that going to last. My kids can't sit in a suburban on each
side of the truck without smacking eachother into a fight
after a while. They do OK in the -10, but they *do* get upset
when I pack a cooler of water/food/video camera at their feet.
(read "KIDS NEED SPACE TOO") So sure, you'd have a couple of
years of family trips maybe, after spending a couple or few
years building. But then you'd come to the heartbreaking
day when you realize you just don't have the plane that meets
your mission, and you need more. And funny but there aren't
many good 6 place kits that you could easily build for the
mission either...esp. none that compare to the -10 for ease
of building (as someone else already commented).
Now, I can't suggest that you keep your family to a size
that fits in the RV-10, as I got spanked by another lister
when I mentioned that long ago. (right J.S. ;) ) But,
if you're going to put 3 kids in the equation, and you seek
the lifestyle you read about on my site, then you're looking
at the wrong plane here, so you may want to look further
at other planes. (Blasphemy, I know) In fact, you could
right now buy a nice Sundowner/Sierra (like I started the
family in), and enjoy some shorter family trips, and then
when you finally don't fit in there, upsize to a Cherokee 6
or something, and you'd come out probably way ahead from a
dollars perspective too....something that you'll need plenty
of, esp. when you have kids. (I know, because we had
pretty *cheap* daycare but it still cost us over $12,000/yr
until they were all into Kindergarden).
I know that's not on the encouraging side, and certainly
your aviation pursuits can still be accomplished, but I
recommend caution at the exact stage your in, because there
are way too many variables between job/kids/plane choice,
and cashflow at that stage, and it's probably best to get
a couple of them pinned down solid so you have a better
matrix to plan around.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
mgeans@provide.net wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I don't know if this subject has come up but here goes.
>
> My wife (if we're allowed to bring them up in the list) was
> interestingly peering over my shoulder when her rubber
> stamping chat room threads turned to ugly divorces, single
> moms, the coming holidays and the wickedness of the male
> species. She said that my RV-10 list had to be less
> depressing than hers as she and I are very happily married.
>
>
> She did bring up a good point. Has there ever been a
> string about the affects of such a project on the family?
> In the year+ of lurking I had to admit that I had not.
> Building a plane is a huge family commitment and takes
> hundreds/thousands of hours from family.
>
> I am 35 married and our latest child came a month ago which
> makes 2 under 2 years old. I'm leaning toward building but
> am currently in the midst of a career change that will
> better allow me funding to build where my position I'm
> exiting would have taken some time. I still have the
> build/buy question in my head though. We may expand to 3
> kids which will make the -10 difficult and my flop to the
> Murphy line to get 4+2 seating from their recently released
> Yukon which shares the Moose fuselage (thus seating) with
> different powerplant and increased wing sq/ft. Does anyone
> have a larger family than the -10 can hold. (Deems here's
> where your input would equal E.F. Hutton's back in the day)
>
> We would be interested in responses on affects on family
> and maybe what was done to incorporate the building process
> into family life/involvement.
> I would also like anyone who is on the other side of the
> build/buy decision to add thier $.02.
>
> As an exiting business owner working ~65 hrs/wk it seems
> difficult to fit in a kit. But my career change hopefully
> will afford me more time as it will money.
>
> Just fishing here; if anyone has or knows of someone who
> has expirience with international employment and what one
> should be wary of when approaching such an opportunty I
> would be very interested in some offline dialog.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Matt Geans
> Builder Wanna-be
>
>
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lyc Knockoff 92 octane compatable |
I can't help you on the experimental side, but I do know of a pilot
that used to use 91 octane unleaded in his 180hp Lyc O-36A1D (8.5:1
compression) powered Mooney. He sold the aircraft, so I only know what
occured while he had it and was using mogas. Two issues. 1. He was
able to get mogas with MTBE that supposedly was safe for STC'd mogas
use. Obviously that is nearly unobtainable now, and ethanol use is
very widespread, meaning your fuel system better be designed to
withstand ethanol. Even here in PHX he could only get the mogas with
MTBE in the summer, as the fuel was switched to ethanol in the winter.
2. Bigger problem was that mogas eventually disolved the variety of
PRC that Mooney used in 1967 when the plane was built, into a goo, and
the tanks eventually leaked so bad he had to choose between a complete
strip and reseal or go with STC'd bladders. He chose the
bladders..which added 30lbs to his empty wt.
AFAIK he never had any issues with vapor lock nor detonation. However,
that was with standard mags and mag timing. Who knows what would
happen with electronic ignition.
On 11/13/06, mgeans@provide.net <mgeans@provide.net> wrote:
>
> Has anyone heard of or had exposure to an experimental
> assembled and tested engine with the correct combustion
> ration (I think is 8 or 8.5:1) that will allow the use of
> 92 octane auto fuel?
>
> I met an seasoned hanger flyer once who suggested that I
> find the engine that I want to use and then fit an airframe
> to it that will suit my needs to alleviate a lot of
> headache.
>
> I think Kitplanes has touched on this in the past possibly
> with Mftrs as Superior or Titan (engines not kits as in
> Tornado or T-51). Don't quote me on the Mftr's as I don't
> recall who they were only that they would take the auto
> fuel. This could be a promising addition to an airframe
> which could pass the time line of avgas extinction. It
> would also be cost effective.
>
> This might spark (no pun intended) the auto vs avgas "war"
> as I've seen such discussions referred to before.
>
> Matt Geans
> Builder Wanna-be
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kits and Family - My story |
Matt, since you asked, Here's my input:
1st a couple of reference setting items.
A. My family is one of my highest priorities, and ranks above my love of
aviation.
B. I'm actively involved in my church to which I willingly dedicate
additional time and this also ranks above my aviation addiction.
C. My personality/nature is somewhat compulsive, I am more than just a
little passionate about the things I undertake. I can't stand to
see/leave something unfinished.
D. I was, at that time, equally obsessive in my career pursuits
With that said, after two kitbuild starts, (without a finish! ) I found
that when I was totally honest with myself it would be impossible to
balance my family/church/work/airplane building activities. After too
may 2-3am sessions in the garage/shop I came to the realization that my
family was suffering from my obsession, and that my compulsive nature
would NEVER allow me to throttle-back and take the 10+ years it would
have taken to completed the project in harmony with the other
'heavy-lifters'. So the Lancair got sold to someone locally, who
finished it, got it on the front page of Kitplanes, and took me for a
ride shortly after his Stage 1 completed. I accepted that 'building'
would be something that would have to wait until retirement.
Now the good news: I didn't give up aviation, instead, I first bought
into a partnership (valuable learning experience), then ultimately
bought a 5 seat V35 Bonanza (worked great while the youngest was still
an infant) eventually traded up to a Baron w/6 seats, which worked well
with the family at all sizes, as the oldest began to grow bigger and
wasn't always interested in going on the 'trips' the 6 seats saw us
through raising 5 children. We used the planes strictly for personal
pleasure. 80% of the hours were spent on family vacations, or visiting
family. My children know their aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents
like their best friends. Judy would plan the vacations. With 2 weekends
and the week in between, it's amazing how much we packed into those
trips. And Oh, yeah, I squeezed 4-5 trips to OSH in between and took Dad
and my son. I've never regretted those decisions.
Now, I am retired, the work obsession, provided some modest resources
to once again launch on my dream of building and flying my own aircraft,
My children are mostly raised and are beginning to identify and shape
the directions and courses their own lives will take them. I'm still
obsessive about leaving things unfinished, building this plane is the
single biggest personal project I've undertaken in my life. I get close
to burn-out from time to time, but the memories of the fun we have had
as a family and the dreams of using the plane for Judy and I to visit
parents, children, and (someday) grandchildren, as well as the extended
family that's I'm acquiring through this process carry me on.
My story is just that, - my story - there are an infinite number of
ways to tackle it, it's just what worked for me. I am in awe of the
younger working families that successfully accomplish this dream earlier
in their lives. I've always been a bit of a 'late-bloomer'
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
http://deemsrv10.com/
mgeans@provide.net wrote:
>
>All,
>
>I don't know if this subject has come up but here goes.
>
>My wife (if we're allowed to bring them up in the list) was
>interestingly peering over my shoulder when her rubber
>stamping chat room threads turned to ugly divorces, single
>moms, the coming holidays and the wickedness of the male
>species. She said that my RV-10 list had to be less
>depressing than hers as she and I are very happily married.
>
>
>She did bring up a good point. Has there ever been a
>string about the affects of such a project on the family?
>In the year+ of lurking I had to admit that I had not.
>Building a plane is a huge family commitment and takes
>hundreds/thousands of hours from family.
>
>I am 35 married and our latest child came a month ago which
>makes 2 under 2 years old. I'm leaning toward building but
>am currently in the midst of a career change that will
>better allow me funding to build where my position I'm
>exiting would have taken some time. I still have the
>build/buy question in my head though. We may expand to 3
>kids which will make the -10 difficult and my flop to the
>Murphy line to get 4+2 seating from their recently released
>Yukon which shares the Moose fuselage (thus seating) with
>different powerplant and increased wing sq/ft. Does anyone
>have a larger family than the -10 can hold. (Deems here's
>where your input would equal E.F. Hutton's back in the day)
>
>We would be interested in responses on affects on family
>and maybe what was done to incorporate the building process
>into family life/involvement.
>I would also like anyone who is on the other side of the
>build/buy decision to add thier $.02.
>
>As an exiting business owner working ~65 hrs/wk it seems
>difficult to fit in a kit. But my career change hopefully
>will afford me more time as it will money.
>
>Just fishing here; if anyone has or knows of someone who
>has expirience with international employment and what one
>should be wary of when approaching such an opportunty I
>would be very interested in some offline dialog.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Matt Geans
>Builder Wanna-be
>
>
>
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | It is real...Registration that is |
N289DT is now officially registered, just received the "pink slip" from
the FAA. Now, I have something to put in that cool little clear pocket
Abby sews on the front panel!!
The excitement is building, now if I can just build the plane.....
Dan
N289DT (40269) RV10E
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
Correct, if there is a friction lock it needs to be all the way loose
during formation flight. The ones who can explain this better are Stu
McCurdy, or Mike Stewart. They run the clinics and can answer the
questions better than I. I would also recommend you goto a clinic, as
they are great fun and can teach you allot, even if you do not choose to
fly formation, it is a great way to spend a weekend with fellow RV
flyers!
Dan
N289DT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:10 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
So if one has a non-verniered throttle that is push/pull, that would be
okay? And for those with quadrants, is there the Cherokee style
(usually
non-effective or non-working for rentals at least) friction knob to make
the
levers not move, or have they upgraded the design? I looked at the
picture
on Van's and was not seeing the friction knob.
John Jessen
#40328
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:31 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
--> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Correct, what they do not want is you have to push something to get free
movement of the throttle, when aircraft are this close together small
changes make big results. What they do not want to have happen is a
mid-air
collision based on the fact you could not retard the throttle quick
enough
because your thumb or palm slipped from the button. When I have observed
others flying in the wingman position, the throttle changes are
occurring on
a continual basis, and a vernier would quickly become a safety of flight
issue.
Remember, Stu put together the course and the FFI certification program,
presented it to the FAA, and is putting his name on the line for the
safety
of all of us and our ability to fly in waivered air space. We need to
follow
those rules, and be as safe as possible. It is not to say a vernier on
the
throttle, in regular flight is any less safe, just that it is not to be
used
for formation flying.
Dan
#40269
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:35 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
Actually, and I'd like to fly formation, I'm confused about this myself.
I
want vernier, but aren't they technically push/pull? I'm missing
something
here, and, yeah, I know it's a brain, but....need some edification. I
did
look this up on the Van's site, and I have flown a C-182 a bunch with
Vernier controls, but I'm still confused given that if you have your
hand on
the throttle knob, is it the pushing in of the little button that is the
no-no here?
John Jessen
#40328
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:58 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
I may have no clue what I am talking about, but I think the throttle is
a
standard Push-Pull in this sense, since there is no button you push to
move
it and you can't screw-unscrew to tweak the setting. The prop and
mixture
are the Vernier Cables. Again, I am talking in the context that you
just
wrote, not in the technical meaning of Push-Pull versus Vernier.
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 Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
--> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
More food for thought on this, if you ever plan on flying formation,
Verniers are not allowed as they do not allow quick enough throttle
changes,
you will have to use regular push pulls or the quadrant. This was stated
at
the ground schools for the FFI.
I personally plan on formation with the Ohio Valley Rvators, so make the
best choice for the type of flying you plan on doing.
Dan
RV10E (N289DT)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables were in a
different location (they probably can be the same from quadrant to
vernier),
but that I wanted to use eyeball passthroughs because the dual
snap-bushing
thing just didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some
would
disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum rivets holding the
firewall on though), but it's got to be better than snap bushings. They
allow you to start angling that cable so it comes out of the firewall at
an
angle that you wish for better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill
the
bore to your cable size for perfect fit.
The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3 holes out
for
snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted to use the 2 outer holes
and
then drill another below them in the middle. (the holes would run
together
if I drilled
all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area got chewed up.
Had I
not pre-drilled the holes, it would have been simple, but I made the
mistake
of first attempting snap bushings.
So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal shop where
they
gave me some stainless scrap, and bought a "patch" that I could drill
properly, and then rivet and red RTV in place to make it all good again.
I
got slightly thicker stainless as well.
For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not going with
the
quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like them here too if they
don't
work like 220RV. But you can be reassured that the quadrant offers
smoothness and precision...
and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution Kelly. If
you
haven't flown one (of this type specifically, it's worth a try. They're
nice.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Paul Grimstad wrote:
> Changes?
>
> Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil cooler recess for
> cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells us again how
> much he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the spring of 05'
> I was planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed up at the
EAA105
> fly in. That changed my mind. Life is all about change, isn't it? Tim
> how did you cap off those cable holes? I remember you drilled them out
> and then later found the quadrant runs in a different location?
>
> Bill DeRouchey, I am going to be in Santa Cruz for Thanksgiving. Will
> you be around home? I'd love to see the paint job.
>
> Paul Grimstad
> RV10 40450 with holes to fill
> Portland, OR 97219
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
> A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went unresponded
> to. For those few who have not made their decision or are still
> open to input on the subject of choice. It has been said that the
> Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item first learned by
> instruction or experience is most often retained. Example, most
> pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing. Those who learn on
> Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with Vernier cables, tend
> to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have flown High
> Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with throttle quadrants
on
> turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose throttle
quadrants.
>
> The choice of throttle quadrants allows the competent pilot to
> control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
> Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a learned skill.
Add
> Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive cables are
> automatically replaced with a quadrant and the discussion is over.
>
> Just food for thought which no one commented on after the valuable
> observation.
>
> John Cox
>
> #40600
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Mark,
Which Hysol adhesive did you use?
Thanks,
Kevin
40494
tail/empennage
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 3:08 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Slime HS
>
> Les - We removed the window by cutting (die grinder) around the perimeter
> of the window. Then using a screw driver pried up the plexiglas that was
> glued (I used Hysol Glue not Weld 10) to the flanges (sides and top).
> Took several hours but it eventually came off. A router would also work.
> Sanded the flanges to get remaining glue off. The fiberglass on the
> fuselage popped off very easily.
>
> Don't know how difficult the job would have been if I had used Weld 10.
>
> If you use Spray Lat to protect the windows in addition to putting it on
> thick don't leave it on for more than a year.
>
> Mark (N410MR - Almost flying again)
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Priming - Sherwin Williams DTM |
FYI - From Section 5 of Van's Construction Manual: "Van's Aircraft does
not have an "approved" primer. We use Sherwin Williams P60 G2. This is
used on the QBs and prototypes made here. The QBs primer has no pigment
so it just makes the interior surfaces slightly darker and lessshiny. In
the US, this primer has a green tint, so the two will not match exactly.
We use this primer because It isinexpensive, dries fast, and is easy to
apply. Sherwin Williams will tell you that the primer needs a top coat.
True,for optimum corrosion resistance, but Vans feels that this is not
necessary for the way in which most owners willmaintain their RVs."
Kevin40494tail/empennagedo not archive----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Wright
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 7:18 PM
Subject: Spam:******, RE: RV10-List: Priming - Sherwin Williams DTM
Les,
The QB wings/fuse don't come primed in the sense you are probably
thinking. The bare metal is still visible, although there is some kind
of viscous protectant on it, and is presumably sprayed on after assembly
to protect it during shipment across the ocean. Some folks have thought
of it as some kind of transparent conversion coating a la alodining.
Regardless of what the QB assemblers use, I think all of us primer users
are priming all the areas we can get to, including removing floor and
side access panels just to help out that much more. A little scrub with
scotchbrite and spirits makes it ready to prime. Interior surfaces
intended for painting will require more prep from even this stage.
Rob Wright
#392
Tailcone attached tonight!
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuel float positioning and proseal |
http://www.jline.com/log/aviation/build/wingkit/photos/IMG_4432.html
Hi all, I was just admiring the result of all of my hard work for the past month
or more, while working on the fuel tanks, and noticed something.
The float sender is sitting on the bottom of the tank skin. It is actually the
steel wire touching the inside tank skin. I imagine a worst-case scenario may be
the wings sitting empty with water in the bottom of the tank, with the steel
wire on the fuel sender touching the bottom tank skin. Also, during normal
operation, the float wire may bang up and down hitting the fuel tank skins.
To mitigate any damage caused by the above, has anyone put a thin layer of
proseal on their tank skins, where the float wire hits the skin? It seems like
a
good idea to do. I haven't seen any mention of doing this in any archives, so I
am a little wary that I may be missing something? Am I?
Thanks,
Jae
#40533 - Light-headed from inhaling all the black death and MEK
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
I wanted to thank everyone for the spirited discussion and fresh
perspectives on my thread I started on Quadrant vs. Vernier.
It all helps as we watch homes floating away here in the soggy Pacific
NW - home of VANS.
John Cox
#40600
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Matt:
As one of few females on this list, I'd like to give my input. My dad
started building his first airplane when I was only 8. Of course that
was only about 12 years ago :-)!! He had four kids, a wife who worked
full-time and a demanding job as a corporate pilot at the time. Some of
my fondest memories of my childhood revolve around spending
nights/weekends in the garage and at the airport with my dad. Not only
did it foster my love of aviation, but I can also identify tools! Give
it a go.
Rhonda Barrett-Bewley
Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
Tulsa, OK
www.barrettprecisionengines.com
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:43 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Kits and Family
Matt, I'm building alone and have no age appropriate kids to this
discussion
(mine are in their 20's), but, man, I'd let things settle for a bit if
you're moving to a new job, etc. You also might find a "good" deal on a
Bonanza 36 or even a Cherokee 6, if you want to haul all the little ones
and
get to flying. The commitment and time of the RV-10 with family is best
answered by such dynamos as Tim Olson and others. I just know that it
is
huge and should not come before family and job. Several builders have
had
their kids helping, but sounds as if yours are not of that age, yet.
The
wife needs to be extremely supportive and enthusiastic, because it is a
long
journey. As for the Murphy, if you think these 10's take time.........
John Jessen
#40328
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
mgeans@provide.net
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:02 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Kits and Family
All,
I don't know if this subject has come up but here goes.
My wife (if we're allowed to bring them up in the list) was
interestingly
peering over my shoulder when her rubber stamping chat room threads
turned
to ugly divorces, single moms, the coming holidays and the wickedness of
the
male species. She said that my RV-10 list had to be less depressing
than
hers as she and I are very happily married.
She did bring up a good point. Has there ever been a string about the
affects of such a project on the family?
In the year+ of lurking I had to admit that I had not.
Building a plane is a huge family commitment and takes
hundreds/thousands of
hours from family.
I am 35 married and our latest child came a month ago which makes 2
under 2
years old. I'm leaning toward building but am currently in the midst of
a
career change that will better allow me funding to build where my
position
I'm exiting would have taken some time. I still have the build/buy
question
in my head though. We may expand to 3 kids which will make the -10
difficult and my flop to the Murphy line to get 4+2 seating from their
recently released Yukon which shares the Moose fuselage (thus seating)
with
different powerplant and increased wing sq/ft. Does anyone have a
larger
family than the -10 can hold. (Deems here's where your input would
equal
E.F. Hutton's back in the day)
We would be interested in responses on affects on family and maybe what
was
done to incorporate the building process into family life/involvement.
I would also like anyone who is on the other side of the build/buy
decision
to add thier $.02.
As an exiting business owner working ~65 hrs/wk it seems difficult to
fit in
a kit. But my career change hopefully will afford me more time as it
will
money.
Just fishing here; if anyone has or knows of someone who has expirience
with
international employment and what one should be wary of when approaching
such an opportunty I would be very interested in some offline dialog.
Thank you,
Matt Geans
Builder Wanna-be
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel float positioning and proseal |
Jae,
I wouldn't worry about it. You're not often going to fly anywhere near
that fuel level required to make the metal bang, unless you like to
be near disaster. Also, you won't get much water in the tanks if
you're lucky. I've rarely had anything to sump, but even if you do
get water there, you'd be nuts to let the plane sit with empty tanks...
because that's one of the CAUSES of water in the tanks. Far better
to use locking caps if necessary, but park it with full tanks.
Probably the most valid concern of all of those is the hitting at
the top skin, if even that one is. Sure, you could put proseal there,
but now you run the risk of the softer proseal being chipped away
and floated through your fuel system...probably catching and plugging
your finger strainers first, if they're big hunks.
In short, (which I seldom can manage), I see no problem there you
should worry about. If others think I'm off base, I'd love to
hear their take.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jae Chang wrote:
>
> http://www.jline.com/log/aviation/build/wingkit/photos/IMG_4432.html
>
> Hi all, I was just admiring the result of all of my hard work for the past month
> or more, while working on the fuel tanks, and noticed something.
>
> The float sender is sitting on the bottom of the tank skin. It is actually the
> steel wire touching the inside tank skin. I imagine a worst-case scenario may
be
> the wings sitting empty with water in the bottom of the tank, with the steel
> wire on the fuel sender touching the bottom tank skin. Also, during normal
> operation, the float wire may bang up and down hitting the fuel tank skins.
>
> To mitigate any damage caused by the above, has anyone put a thin layer of
> proseal on their tank skins, where the float wire hits the skin? It seems like
a
> good idea to do. I haven't seen any mention of doing this in any archives, so
I
> am a little wary that I may be missing something? Am I?
>
> Thanks,
> Jae
> #40533 - Light-headed from inhaling all the black death and MEK
>
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
Dan, thanks. I absolutely look forward to attending one of the formation
clinics. And thanks for the advice. Good to know before hand.
John Jessen
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:03 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
--> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Correct, if there is a friction lock it needs to be all the way loose during
formation flight. The ones who can explain this better are Stu McCurdy, or
Mike Stewart. They run the clinics and can answer the questions better than
I. I would also recommend you goto a clinic, as they are great fun and can
teach you allot, even if you do not choose to fly formation, it is a great
way to spend a weekend with fellow RV flyers!
Dan
N289DT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:10 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
So if one has a non-verniered throttle that is push/pull, that would be
okay? And for those with quadrants, is there the Cherokee style (usually
non-effective or non-working for rentals at least) friction knob to make the
levers not move, or have they upgraded the design? I looked at the picture
on Van's and was not seeing the friction knob.
John Jessen
#40328
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:31 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
--> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Correct, what they do not want is you have to push something to get free
movement of the throttle, when aircraft are this close together small
changes make big results. What they do not want to have happen is a mid-air
collision based on the fact you could not retard the throttle quick enough
because your thumb or palm slipped from the button. When I have observed
others flying in the wingman position, the throttle changes are occurring on
a continual basis, and a vernier would quickly become a safety of flight
issue.
Remember, Stu put together the course and the FFI certification program,
presented it to the FAA, and is putting his name on the line for the safety
of all of us and our ability to fly in waivered air space. We need to follow
those rules, and be as safe as possible. It is not to say a vernier on the
throttle, in regular flight is any less safe, just that it is not to be used
for formation flying.
Dan
#40269
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:35 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
Actually, and I'd like to fly formation, I'm confused about this myself.
I
want vernier, but aren't they technically push/pull? I'm missing something
here, and, yeah, I know it's a brain, but....need some edification. I did
look this up on the Van's site, and I have flown a C-182 a bunch with
Vernier controls, but I'm still confused given that if you have your hand on
the throttle knob, is it the pushing in of the little button that is the
no-no here?
John Jessen
#40328
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:58 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
I may have no clue what I am talking about, but I think the throttle is a
standard Push-Pull in this sense, since there is no button you push to move
it and you can't screw-unscrew to tweak the setting. The prop and mixture
are the Vernier Cables. Again, I am talking in the context that you just
wrote, not in the technical meaning of Push-Pull versus Vernier.
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 Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
--> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
More food for thought on this, if you ever plan on flying formation,
Verniers are not allowed as they do not allow quick enough throttle changes,
you will have to use regular push pulls or the quadrant. This was stated at
the ground schools for the FFI.
I personally plan on formation with the Ohio Valley Rvators, so make the
best choice for the type of flying you plan on doing.
Dan
RV10E (N289DT)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables were in a
different location (they probably can be the same from quadrant to vernier),
but that I wanted to use eyeball passthroughs because the dual snap-bushing
thing just didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some would
disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum rivets holding the
firewall on though), but it's got to be better than snap bushings. They
allow you to start angling that cable so it comes out of the firewall at an
angle that you wish for better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill the
bore to your cable size for perfect fit.
The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3 holes out for
snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted to use the 2 outer holes and
then drill another below them in the middle. (the holes would run together
if I drilled
all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area got chewed up.
Had I
not pre-drilled the holes, it would have been simple, but I made the mistake
of first attempting snap bushings.
So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal shop where they
gave me some stainless scrap, and bought a "patch" that I could drill
properly, and then rivet and red RTV in place to make it all good again.
I
got slightly thicker stainless as well.
For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not going with the
quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like them here too if they don't
work like 220RV. But you can be reassured that the quadrant offers
smoothness and precision...
and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution Kelly. If you
haven't flown one (of this type specifically, it's worth a try. They're
nice.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Paul Grimstad wrote:
> Changes?
>
> Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil cooler recess for
> cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells us again how
> much he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the spring of 05'
> I was planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed up at the
EAA105
> fly in. That changed my mind. Life is all about change, isn't it? Tim
> how did you cap off those cable holes? I remember you drilled them out
> and then later found the quadrant runs in a different location?
>
> Bill DeRouchey, I am going to be in Santa Cruz for Thanksgiving. Will
> you be around home? I'd love to see the paint job.
>
> Paul Grimstad
> RV10 40450 with holes to fill
> Portland, OR 97219
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
> A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went unresponded
> to. For those few who have not made their decision or are still
> open to input on the subject of choice. It has been said that the
> Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item first learned by
> instruction or experience is most often retained. Example, most
> pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing. Those who learn on
> Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with Vernier cables, tend
> to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have flown High
> Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with throttle quadrants
on
> turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose throttle
quadrants.
>
> The choice of throttle quadrants allows the competent pilot to
> control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
> Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a learned skill.
Add
> Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive cables are
> automatically replaced with a quadrant and the discussion is over.
>
> Just food for thought which no one commented on after the valuable
> observation.
>
> John Cox
>
> #40600
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Kevin,
I'll try and find the number at the hangar Thursday. It was given to me by
a Lancair builder that used it for his windows.
Mark
Do not archive
>From: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa@antelecom.net>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Slime HS
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:31:27 -0800
>
>
>Mark,
>
>Which Hysol adhesive did you use?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Kevin
>40494
>tail/empennage
>
>do not archive
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Ritter" <mritter509@msn.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 3:08 PM
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Slime HS
>
>
>>
>>Les - We removed the window by cutting (die grinder) around the perimeter
>>of the window. Then using a screw driver pried up the plexiglas that was
>>glued (I used Hysol Glue not Weld 10) to the flanges (sides and top). Took
>>several hours but it eventually came off. A router would also work.
>>Sanded the flanges to get remaining glue off. The fiberglass on the
>>fuselage popped off very easily.
>>
>>Don't know how difficult the job would have been if I had used Weld 10.
>>
>>If you use Spray Lat to protect the windows in addition to putting it on
>>thick don't leave it on for more than a year.
>>
>>Mark (N410MR - Almost flying again)
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lyc Knockoff 92 octane compatable |
On Lycomings site it say mogas of 91 octane is OK to use on the "X" series engines.
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Matt,
I share similar sentiments with the others that have responded. We're a family
of 4 and my kids are little, 6 & 9. They are all supportive of the project --
so far. My wife has helped when requested, but it has been minimal as to this
point I've only had one instance where I needed another pair of hands and that
was the rudder close out. I'm in the middle of the HS so I know they days
are coming and my wife is ready to help on request. My kids, have shown almost
no interest in the build (although lots in flying the finished product), but
I'm hoping that will change once the airframe starts taking shape. I'm reluctant
to force them into mandatory involvement lest I alienate them completely.
I figure they'll get involved when they're ready.
The way we approached this project from the beginning was that this was not going
to be an overnight project so there was no rush. I'm SB all the way and have
been trying just to keep up a steady pace -- the old adage of trying to do
something every day, even if it's just deburring a few holes. My bargain with
the family was to not become missing in action down in the basement every waking
moment I'm not at work. When I get home at night, a sit-down dinner with
all hands followed by kid's homework are always checklist items 1 & 2. I'll try
to then go down and putting an hour or two before knocking off to come up and
put the kids to bed and spend some time with my frau. On the weekends, I devote
at least a full day to family activities (we just moved to the DC area in
July so lots to see). On the other day, I try to put in a good 5-6 hr stretch
building. Using this framework, I've completed the VS and rudder in a month
and a half since the kit arrived (about 60 hrs build time). I'm not breaking
any speed records, but I'm making progress and keeping the family happy at the
same time.
Funny thing is I convinced the wife on going ahead with the project with the logic
that the longer we put it off, the longer it would be before we had our plane,
if ever. A week after the kit got here I got word that I'm off to Iraq for
6-months with 2 months of training on top of that prior to deploying. The
race is now on to get the empacone finished before I deploy in January. No big
deal if I don't, but I'd sure love to have it done so that I can start on the
wings in the Fall of next year.
So, I guess what I trying to say is don't bite off more than you can chew and don't
try to force the issue. I think the safe bet is to just ensure you and the
family are all on the same sheet of music with regards to your time and their
money.;-)
Todd
40631
Do Not Archive
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
Well, not entirely true. Formation pilots with vernier throttles use a
clip to hold the button in ..... disabling the vernier function.
Linn
Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
>
>More food for thought on this, if you ever plan on flying formation,
>Verniers are not allowed as they do not allow quick enough throttle
>changes, you will have to use regular push pulls or the quadrant. This
>was stated at the ground schools for the FFI.
>I personally plan on formation with the Ohio Valley Rvators, so make the
>best choice for the type of flying you plan on doing.
>Dan
>RV10E (N289DT)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
>Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:55 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
>
>Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables
>were in a different location (they probably can be the
>same from quadrant to vernier), but that I wanted to use
>eyeball passthroughs because the dual snap-bushing thing just
>didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some
>would disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum rivets
>holding the firewall on though), but it's got to be better than
>snap bushings. They allow you to start angling that cable
>so it comes out of the firewall at an angle that you wish for
>better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill the bore
>to your cable size for perfect fit.
>
>The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3
>holes out for snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted
>to use the 2 outer holes and then drill another below them
>in the middle. (the holes would run together if I drilled
>all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
>ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area
>got chewed up. Had I not pre-drilled the holes, it would
>have been simple, but I made the mistake of first attempting
>snap bushings.
>
>So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal
>shop where they gave me some stainless scrap, and bought
>a "patch" that I could drill properly, and then rivet and
>red RTV in place to make it all good again. I got slightly
>thicker stainless as well.
>
>For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not
>going with the quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like
>them here too if they don't work like 220RV. But you can
>be reassured that the quadrant offers smoothness and precision...
>and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution
>Kelly. If you haven't flown one (of this type specifically,
>it's worth a try. They're nice.
>
>Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>do not archive
>
>
>Paul Grimstad wrote:
>
>
>>Changes?
>>
>>Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil cooler recess for
>>cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells us again how
>>much he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the spring of 05'
>>I was planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed up at the
>>
>>
>EAA105
>
>
>>fly in. That changed my mind. Life is all about change, isn't it? Tim
>>how did you cap off those cable holes? I remember you drilled them out
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>and then later found the quadrant runs in a different location?
>>
>>Bill DeRouchey, I am going to be in Santa Cruz for Thanksgiving. Will
>>you be around home? I'd love to see the paint job.
>>
>>Paul Grimstad
>>RV10 40450 with holes to fill
>>Portland, OR 97219
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
>> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>>
>> A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went unresponded
>> to. For those few who have not made their decision or are still
>> open to input on the subject of choice. It has been said that the
>> Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item first learned by
>> instruction or experience is most often retained. Example, most
>> pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing. Those who learn on
>> Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with Vernier cables, tend
>> to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have flown High
>> Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with throttle quadrants
>>
>>
>on
>
>
>> turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose throttle
>>
>>
>quadrants.
>
>
>> The choice of throttle quadrants allows the competent pilot to
>> control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
>> Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a learned skill.
>>
>>
>Add
>
>
>> Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive cables are
>> automatically replaced with a quadrant and the discussion is over.
>>
>> Just food for thought which no one commented on after the valuable
>> observation.
>>
>> John Cox
>>
>> #40600
>>
>> *
>>
>> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
>> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>
>>
>>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
>.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
>> *
>>
>>*
>>
>>
>>*
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel float positioning and proseal |
Hi Jae,
The word I got from Vans is that you want to bend the wire so that
the plastic arm bottoms out with the float resting about 1/8" above
the base of the tank. That will keep the float from chattering
against the tank skin when empty.
I was ultimately uncomfortable with the float clearances, and have
left the baffles off the tanks in anticipation of the capacitance
senders the Vans is working on for the 10.
Last I checked, they didn't have a completion date scheduled, but
they were working on it. With my flaps half done, my ailerons yet to
be touched and my fuselage sitting in the crate, I figure I've got
plenty of time before I'll really need to close up those tanks.
Jeff Carpenter
40304
On Nov 13, 2006, at 12:06 PM, Jae Chang wrote:
> matronics_rv10@jline.com>
>
> http://www.jline.com/log/aviation/build/wingkit/photos/IMG_4432.html
>
> Hi all, I was just admiring the result of all of my hard work for
> the past month
> or more, while working on the fuel tanks, and noticed something.
>
> The float sender is sitting on the bottom of the tank skin. It is
> actually the
> steel wire touching the inside tank skin. I imagine a worst-case
> scenario may be
> the wings sitting empty with water in the bottom of the tank, with
> the steel
> wire on the fuel sender touching the bottom tank skin. Also, during
> normal
> operation, the float wire may bang up and down hitting the fuel
> tank skins.
>
> To mitigate any damage caused by the above, has anyone put a thin
> layer of
> proseal on their tank skins, where the float wire hits the skin? It
> seems like a
> good idea to do. I haven't seen any mention of doing this in any
> archives, so I
> am a little wary that I may be missing something? Am I?
>
> Thanks,
> Jae
> #40533 - Light-headed from inhaling all the black death and MEK
>
>
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kits and Family |
Rhonda,
Thank you for your input. It is this type of expirience
that I would like to have with my kids too.
My admiration for your family's company - the quality and
attention to detail that you put into your product is a
credit to all of us that seek comfort in a mechanical
device that will haul ourselves above the earth. Congrats
on your recent writeup in Kitplanes and your addition to
Marc's Sportsman.
Matt Geans
Builder Wanna-be
Do not archive
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:24:11 -0600
"Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda@bpaengines.com> wrote:
> <Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
>
> Matt:
>
> As one of few females on this list, I'd like to give my
> input. My dad
> started building his first airplane when I was only 8.
> Of course that
> was only about 12 years ago :-)!! He had four kids, a
> wife who worked
> full-time and a demanding job as a corporate pilot at the
> time. Some of
> my fondest memories of my childhood revolve around
> spending
> nights/weekends in the garage and at the airport with my
> dad. Not only
> did it foster my love of aviation, but I can also
> identify tools! Give
> it a go.
>
> Rhonda Barrett-Bewley
> Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
> Tulsa, OK
> www.barrettprecisionengines.com
>
> do not archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of John Jessen
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:43 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Kits and Family
>
> <jjessen@rcn.com>
>
> Matt, I'm building alone and have no age appropriate kids
> to this
> discussion
> (mine are in their 20's), but, man, I'd let things settle
> for a bit if
> you're moving to a new job, etc. You also might find a
> "good" deal on a
> Bonanza 36 or even a Cherokee 6, if you want to haul all
> the little ones
> and
> get to flying. The commitment and time of the RV-10 with
> family is best
> answered by such dynamos as Tim Olson and others. I just
> know that it
> is
> huge and should not come before family and job. Several
> builders have
> had
> their kids helping, but sounds as if yours are not of
> that age, yet.
> The
> wife needs to be extremely supportive and enthusiastic,
> because it is a
> long
> journey. As for the Murphy, if you think these 10's take
> time.........
>
> John Jessen
> #40328
>
> Do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of
> mgeans@provide.net
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:02 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Kits and Family
>
>
> All,
>
> I don't know if this subject has come up but here goes.
>
> My wife (if we're allowed to bring them up in the list)
> was
> interestingly
> peering over my shoulder when her rubber stamping chat
> room threads
> turned
> to ugly divorces, single moms, the coming holidays and
> the wickedness of
> the
> male species. She said that my RV-10 list had to be less
> depressing
> than
> hers as she and I are very happily married.
>
>
> She did bring up a good point. Has there ever been a
> string about the
> affects of such a project on the family?
> In the year+ of lurking I had to admit that I had not.
> Building a plane is a huge family commitment and takes
> hundreds/thousands of
> hours from family.
>
> I am 35 married and our latest child came a month ago
> which makes 2
> under 2
> years old. I'm leaning toward building but am currently
> in the midst of
> a
> career change that will better allow me funding to build
> where my
> position
> I'm exiting would have taken some time. I still have the
> build/buy
> question
> in my head though. We may expand to 3 kids which will
> make the -10
> difficult and my flop to the Murphy line to get 4+2
> seating from their
> recently released Yukon which shares the Moose fuselage
> (thus seating)
> with
> different powerplant and increased wing sq/ft. Does
> anyone have a
> larger
> family than the -10 can hold. (Deems here's where your
> input would
> equal
> E.F. Hutton's back in the day)
>
> We would be interested in responses on affects on family
> and maybe what
> was
> done to incorporate the building process into family
> life/involvement.
> I would also like anyone who is on the other side of the
> build/buy
> decision
> to add thier $.02.
>
> As an exiting business owner working ~65 hrs/wk it seems
> difficult to
> fit in
> a kit. But my career change hopefully will afford me
> more time as it
> will
> money.
>
> Just fishing here; if anyone has or knows of someone who
> has expirience
> with
> international employment and what one should be wary of
> when approaching
> such an opportunty I would be very interested in some
> offline dialog.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Matt Geans
> Builder Wanna-be
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Admin.
>
> page,
>
>
>
>
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Eggenfellner's dual battery requirements. |
I looked in the archives and found mention of this but did not see any
photos.
Can anyone direct me to the location to find pictures of this setup. D.
Lloyd, if I recal correctly, have you worked on this yet?
Any one else going planning on this route.
Thanks,
John G. 409
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lyc Knockoff 92 octane compatable |
I burn 92 octane in my Pitts. The engine is an O-360-A-4A. I think
it's 8.5 or 9.5 ...... can't recall. Been using mogas in it for 25
years now. It sees 3300 to 3400 RPM a lot when I'm trying to disorient
myself. :-P I've never had any problems with mogas ..... with the
exception of when I got some fuel with alcohol in it. Ate up all the
rubber diaphragms in the PS-5 carb and the fuel pump. Lesson learned.
Linn
do not archive
mgeans@provide.net wrote:
>
>Has anyone heard of or had exposure to an experimental
>assembled and tested engine with the correct combustion
>ration (I think is 8 or 8.5:1) that will allow the use of
>92 octane auto fuel?
>
>I met an seasoned hanger flyer once who suggested that I
>find the engine that I want to use and then fit an airframe
>to it that will suit my needs to alleviate a lot of
>headache.
>
>I think Kitplanes has touched on this in the past possibly
>with Mftrs as Superior or Titan (engines not kits as in
>Tornado or T-51). Don't quote me on the Mftr's as I don't
>recall who they were only that they would take the auto
>fuel. This could be a promising addition to an airframe
>which could pass the time line of avgas extinction. It
>would also be cost effective.
>
>This might spark (no pun intended) the auto vs avgas "war"
>as I've seen such discussions referred to before.
>
>Matt Geans
>Builder Wanna-be
>
>
>
>
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Antenna Location |
With respect to your rf experience, there is no problem with wingtip for VHF navigation
antennas. You have explained below why only navigation antennas are
primarily placed in the wingtip. Comm antennas do not work well in the wingtip.
Notice that all VHF navigational antenna are mounted horizontally and are
polarized as such. Communication antennas on the other hand are mounted vertically
and polarized as such. Since the wingtips are set up very well for horizontal
installation, they work quite well for navigational antennas. I think the
question was in regard to navigational antennas only. Search the archives,
I think this has been previously discussed ad nauseam.
>The problem with wing tip antennas, or antennas not located on the
>fuselage or vertical stab leading edge or tip, would seem to be twofold.
>One, re the wing tip location, such would likely cause a null in
>reception (and transmission) primarily oriented in the direction of the
>wing. Also, if the aircraft antenna is of one orientation, e.g.
>horizontal, and the target station is vertical oriented (polarized, to
>be precise), typically a 20db path loss occurs. Every 3db loss equates
>to roughly a 50% drop in signal strength.
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Before closing up the top of the TailconeBefore closing |
up the top of the Tailcone
Since the time the worry about holes I drilled in the longerons of the
Tailcone came up as a public discussion on the web, I did go to Van's for
their opinion. The engineers there felt the same as I did, which made my
day, since my logic at the time seemed sound, but one never knows if one is
not a structural or aeronautical engineer. The reply is below. I believe
that Tim's cautions are sound, however. Careful when you drill or cut into
a major structural piece (the thought about putting in an access panel in
the skin comes to mind). Think it through, ask questions of Van's and
others with engineering degrees or just sound building experience, etc etc
before proceeding.
John Jessen
#40328
Van's reply from Scott Risen:
John, ran this by engineering and they have no problem with
it....especially since you are adding 'reinforcement' of sorts to the tail
cone. The holes themselves are no different than the HS attach bolts
farther back on many of the RV's and will not compromise the strength of the
longerons....carry on! van's
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Before closing up the top of the TailconeBefore
closing up the top of the Tailcone
John,
I don't think you have to worry about wrecking the tailcone. I just would
suggest that since there are larger holes there, you may want to take an
additional step and double up that longeron. The longeron gets joined from
tail to fuselage with a set of bolts, so it can't be a huge problem. What I
would do, is just match drill a section of the same type of angle, and lay
it on top of that longeron, but pass the shelf bolts all the way through
both pieces. It would form a sideways T. You could make the piece about 6"
longer than the shelf width, and then put screws or bolts on about 3"
spacing down the length of it. (adjusting the spacing so it looks nice with
the 2 shelf bolts) That should double up nicely on the longeron I'd think,
and it would be probably stronger than original at that point.
You may still want to run it by Van's to see if they like that idea, but
that would be my suggestion, and I myself wouldn't feel uncomfortable with
that. I'm sure you didn't ruin the tailcone.
Didn't mean to sound in any negative tone. Just wanted to make sure that
before other people drill large holes, they think of the various options to
keep structural strength.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John Jessen wrote:
>
> It's always good to nit pick. I did think about that, and figured
> that the longerons going across might actually be of some stiffening
> benefit if the plane wants to hit something solid and those seat belts
> decide to buckle the longerons, which they probably would do. The
> holes, of course, being firmly filled with the bolts. I may be wrong,
> and thus my entire tailcone is ruined and unsafe. Oh, well.
>
> If I were to do it again, I would use something smaller, even simply
> pop rivet a lighter angle. I had longeron material left over and went
> ahead with trying to beef up the structure.
>
> 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: Saturday, November 11, 2006 9:42 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Before closing up the top of the
> TailconeBefore closing up the top of the Tailcone
>
>
> John,
>
> I don't mean to nit pick after the fact, but the reason I used screws
> was so the hole through the longerons wouldn't have to be any larger
> than necessary, hence weaker. I think mine are #8 screws. Not
> necessarily a big deal, but large holes through a longeron would be
something I'd run by vans.
> Just posting here so future builders might benefit from the advice too.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> John Jessen wrote:
>> Update:
>>
>> Last night I put in two pieces of angle running across from one side
>> to the other between the F-1007 and the F-1008 in the tailcone (see
>> picture). It took a couple of hours to figure out where I wanted it,
>> cut some angle that was extra, get it to the right shape, drill the
>> holes and so on. It took another couple hours thinking about it,
>> talking about it, etc. All for 2 angles that may, just may be used
>> to hold a magnetometer or some such thing. I can't imagine what some
>> of the more complex mods are costing folks in terms of build time!
>>
>> However, do this before putting on the top skin of the tailcone,
>> should you even remotely consider hanging an AHRS or some other
>> electronic marvel back there. Worth doing. I'm also going to put in
>> extra wires for the rudder trim, for the camera in the VS fairing,
>> and for the two lights in the HS that I turn on when on long final to
>> light up my tail art.
>>
>> Finally, at someone's suggestion posted on this list, I downloaded
>> the MS PowerToy to resize pictures. I use Irfanview to make the
>> photo albums for my website, but for quick and easy, my goodness, get
>> the resize powertoy. Well worth the couple minutes to download and
>> install. Just right click any photo you're viewing and select the
>> size and you're done. One of the better tools.
>>
>> John Jessen
>> #40328 (Hey, Bruce, thanks for the jigs. Just noticed them last
>> night)
>>
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>> *From:* John Jessen [mailto:jjessen@rcn.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:48 AM
>> *To:* 'rv10-list@matronics.com'
>> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Before closing up the top of the
>> TailconeBefore closing up the top of the Tailcone
>>
>> Well, one thing for sure, it all depends on which glass unit you
>> decide on. Rob's 3500 has the AHRS in the unit. The Chelton's have
>> both remote, with some placing the magnetometer in the wing, the
>> AHRS in various locations. Etc Etc. I'm not quite settled on the
>> panel, and not quite settled on air conditioning, or a hat shelf, so
>> will place a "shelf" aft of the F-1007, just in case, to hold
>> whatever, or nothing. I almost agree to wait for the top skinning,
>> but then you have a major component not done. Others have closed it
>> up, made their decisions, crawled around in amazing contorted
>> positions to install, and are doing nicely flying from coast to
>> coast. So.... I'll compromise and move on. I've been on this
>> tailcone for an eternity and would like to get off of it.
>>
>> John Jessen
>> #40328
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
>> *Bill DeRouchey
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:46 AM
>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
>> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Before closing up the top of the
>> TailconeBefore closing up the top of the Tailcone
>>
>> My recommendation is to not button down the top three tail skins
>> until everything else is completed on the entire aircraft. You
>> can start and even perform slow taxi tests with these skins
>> off. If you are going to install a remote magnetometer or AHRS
>> you can swing the compass and relocate the unit as needed. Keep
>> all clecos away from the AHRS as they are iron based.
>>
>> I have constructed a simple shelf aftmost between the main
>> fuselage longeron and the elevator trim servo mechanism. My
>> first AHRS in installed in that location was affected by the
>> trim servo motor (not running). I scrapped this AHRS for other
>> reasons and now tasked to locate the Cross-bow properly.
>>
>> You can not locate the AHRS just behind the baggage bulkhead no
>> matter how high it is installed above the floor. Variable
>> magnetic fields from the baggage will affect your heading
>> information in uncontrollable ways.
>>
>> The Cross-bow has a good hard iron calibration routine so my
>> next approach will be to locate it far aft and calibrate the
>> magnetic interferrence from the trim servo motor out of the
>> heading. With this approach there is only one source of
>> interferrence.
>>
>> My suggestion is to delay installation of the three top skins to
>> the very end. I will report back after I am satisfied with my
>> AHRS installation.
>>
>> Bill DeRouchey
>> billderou@yahoo.com <mailto:billderou@yahoo.com>
>> N939SB, flying with a few pit stops
>>
>>
>>
>> */Chris <toaster73@earthlink.net>/* wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'd consider the ability to keep it water tight as well.
>> One other way of thinking about these considerations is just
>> to not bother
>> planning ahead. Just finish the airframe and then install
>> the various
>> pieces of gear. then you will be sure that it can be
>> serviced later and you
>> will have figured out the best way to contort yourself to
>> get at it for the
>> future maintenance.
>> -Chris Lucas
>> #40072 (cabin side skins)
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Deems Davis"
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Before closing up the top of the
>> TailconeBefore
>> closing up the top of the Tailcone
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Good point Kelly !, thanks for keeping this Dreamer
>> grounded in a safer
>> > reality. Could it be accomplished by installing
>> sufficient doublers around
>> > the opening? And rather than making it hinged, using
>> closely spaced
>> > nutplates to attach the access?
>> >
>> > Deems Davis # 406
>> > Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
>> > http://deemsrv10.com/
>> >
>> > Kelly McMullen wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Be careful. I would expect the exterior skins in that
>> area to be
>> >> considered part of the stressed monocoque. Might be
>> better to have
>> >> access panel as part of the rear baggage compartment
>> panel, as many
>> >> Cessnas do.
>> >>
>> >> On 11/7/06, Deems Davis wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Something I was reminded recently of was the issue of
>> serviceability.
>> >>> There is a lot of space behind the baggage bulkhead,
>> and potentially
>> >>> room for things like Oxygen, air Conditioning, AHRS,
>> Strobe power
>> >>> supply, ELT, Elevator servo, Batteries, contactors,
>> etc. etc. With the
>> >>> tailcone disconnected, and with the top fuse skin at
>> the rear of the
>> >>> cabin off, it's easy to get to these areas, but how
>> will that be
>> >>> accomplished when everything is riveted/bolted up, just
>> a thought to
>> >>> throw into the mix, its caused me to think seriously
>> about adding a
>> >>> hinged access door/panel that would be located behind
>> the baggage
>> >>> bulkhead top skin and forward of the tailcone top skin.
>> >>>
>> >>> Deems Davis # 406
>> >>> Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
>> >>> http://deemsrv10.com/
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> John Jessen wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > So, is there a reason to locate where Russ has done,
>> or to locate
>> >>> > behind the F-1007, further away from the battery? I'm
>> trying to keep
>> >>> > the area above the battery free for a future hat
>> shelf, but don't want
>> >>> > to place things too far aft if there is a reason one
>> should keep the
>> >>> > AHRS and magnetometer closer to, say, the mid of the
>> plane. If either
>> >>> > is back further into the tailcone, could that mess up
>> their readings?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > John Jessen
>> >>> > 40328 (closing the tailcone as soon as I locate the
>> shelf for the
>> >>> > AHRS/magnetometer)
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>> >>> > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> >>> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On
>> Behalf Of
>> >>> > *Russell Daves
>> >>> > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 07, 2006 3:55 AM
>> >>> > *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
>> >>> > *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Before closing up the top
>> of the
>> >>> > TailconeBefore closing up the top of the Tailcone
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I installed my most forward cross member as close to
>> the F-1006 as
>> >>> > possible, and just behind the bolts joining the
>> F-1046 and F-1032
>> >>> > Longerons together, almost directly above the
>> battery. I have had
>> >>> > no problems with interference, except where I failed
>> to use brass
>> >>> > bolts and washers to install the magnameter onto the
>> shelf.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Since the duel AHRS and magnameters are all on a
>> shelf next to
>> >>> > each other in the center of the fuselage the left and
>> right seat
>> >>> > belt cables just cross above the cross members and
>> are
> no
>> >>> > problem. If you were to install the AHRS or
>> magnameter next to
>> >>> > the fuselage side wall they could cause interference.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Best regards,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Russ Daves
>> >>> > N710RV flying
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >*
>> >>> >
>> >>> >href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
>> >>>
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
>> >>> >href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
>> >>>
>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> >>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matron
>> ics.co
> m/Navigator?RV10-List
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >*
>> >>> >
>> >>> > -- No virus found in this Edition. Release Date:
>> 11/6/2006
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> >>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
>> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matron
>> i
>> cs.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> --
>> Checked 268.14.0/524 - Release Date: 11/8/2006
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by Release Date: 11/8/2006
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> 11/10/2006
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> --
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> --
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
--
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Message 58
| 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: | Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
Unless they have changed their thoughts since April, Mike and Stu will
not let you do it, period. What pilots do on their own is their choice,
but when flying formation it affects all in the flight. If that clip
falls off when you are least expecting it there will be big problems.
Like I said before,Stu runs the program and he should be the one to talk
to on this, I am still just a builder, and formation pilot wanna be.
Dan
N289DT
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
Well, not entirely true. Formation pilots with vernier throttles use a
clip to hold the button in ..... disabling the vernier function.
Linn
Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
<LloydDR@wernerco.com> <mailto:LloydDR@wernerco.com>
More food for thought on this, if you ever plan on flying
formation,
Verniers are not allowed as they do not allow quick enough
throttle
changes, you will have to use regular push pulls or the
quadrant. This
was stated at the ground schools for the FFI.
I personally plan on formation with the Ohio Valley Rvators, so
make the
best choice for the type of flying you plan on doing.
Dan
RV10E (N289DT)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Olson
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:55 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
<mailto:Tim@MyRV10.com>
Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables
were in a different location (they probably can be the
same from quadrant to vernier), but that I wanted to use
eyeball passthroughs because the dual snap-bushing thing just
didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some
would disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum
rivets
holding the firewall on though), but it's got to be better than
snap bushings. They allow you to start angling that cable
so it comes out of the firewall at an angle that you wish for
better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill the bore
to your cable size for perfect fit.
The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3
holes out for snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted
to use the 2 outer holes and then drill another below them
in the middle. (the holes would run together if I drilled
all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area
got chewed up. Had I not pre-drilled the holes, it would
have been simple, but I made the mistake of first attempting
snap bushings.
So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal
shop where they gave me some stainless scrap, and bought
a "patch" that I could drill properly, and then rivet and
red RTV in place to make it all good again. I got slightly
thicker stainless as well.
For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not
going with the quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like
them here too if they don't work like 220RV. But you can
be reassured that the quadrant offers smoothness and
precision...
and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution
Kelly. If you haven't flown one (of this type specifically,
it's worth a try. They're nice.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Paul Grimstad wrote:
Changes?
Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil
cooler recess for
cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells
us again how
much he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the
spring of 05'
I was planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed
up at the
EAA105
fly in. That changed my mind. Life is all about change,
isn't it? Tim
how did you cap off those cable holes? I remember you
drilled them out
and then later found the quadrant runs in a different
location?
Bill DeRouchey, I am going to be in Santa Cruz for
Thanksgiving. Will
you be around home? I'd love to see the paint job.
Paul Grimstad
RV10 40450 with holes to fill
Portland, OR 97219
----- Original Message -----
*From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
<mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
*To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
<mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com> <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
*Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
*Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went
unresponded
to. For those few who have not made their decision
or are still
open to input on the subject of choice. It has been
said that the
Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item
first learned by
instruction or experience is most often retained.
Example, most
pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing.
Those who learn on
Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with
Vernier cables, tend
to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have
flown High
Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with
throttle quadrants
on
turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose
throttle
quadrants.
The choice of throttle quadrants allows the
competent pilot to
control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a
learned skill.
Add
Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive
cables are
automatically replaced with a quadrant and the
discussion is over.
Just food for thought which no one commented on
after the valuable
observation.
John Cox
#40600
*
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com"
<http://www.aeroelectric.com> >www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com"
<http://www.buildersbooks.com> >www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com" <http://www.kitlog.com>
>www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com"
<http://www.homebuilthelp.com> >www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> >http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
*
*
*
Message 59
| 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: Lyc Knockoff 92 octane compatable |
Pardon my ignorance, all.
What is the difference between mogas and the auto fuel at
my local Shell station? None? Is mogas what the aviation
techies call car gas? IE mo-tor gas-oline?
Matt Geans
Builder Wanna-be
Do Not Archive
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:24:21 -0500
linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>
> I burn 92 octane in my Pitts. The engine is an
> O-360-A-4A. I think it's 8.5 or 9.5 ...... can't recall.
> Been using mogas in it for 25 years now. It sees 3300
> to 3400 RPM a lot when I'm trying to disorient myself.
> :-P I've never had any problems with mogas ..... with
> the exception of when I got some fuel with alcohol in it.
> Ate up all the rubber diaphragms in the PS-5 carb and
> the fuel pump. Lesson learned.
> Linn
> do not archive
>
> mgeans@provide.net wrote:
>
> >
> >Has anyone heard of or had exposure to an experimental
> >assembled and tested engine with the correct combustion
> >ration (I think is 8 or 8.5:1) that will allow the use
> of
> >92 octane auto fuel?
> >I met an seasoned hanger flyer once who suggested that I
> >find the engine that I want to use and then fit an
> airframe
> >to it that will suit my needs to alleviate a lot of
> >headache.
> >I think Kitplanes has touched on this in the past
> possibly
> >with Mftrs as Superior or Titan (engines not kits as in
> >Tornado or T-51). Don't quote me on the Mftr's as I
> don't
> >recall who they were only that they would take the auto
> >fuel. This could be a promising addition to an airframe
> >which could pass the time line of avgas extinction. It
> >would also be cost effective.
> >This might spark (no pun intended) the auto vs avgas
> "war"
> >as I've seen such discussions referred to before.
> >
> >Matt Geans
> >Builder Wanna-be
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Admin.
>
> page,
>
>
>
>
Message 60
| 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: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
Good point. I've met them and attended their ground school. Safety is
their primary concern .... as it should be. As I don't have an RV in
which to fly formation, that issue hasn't come up before. There are
other formation clinics for other aircraft types, and that comment came
from one of those groups. Hopefully someone will get a position
statement from Mike or Stu before they choose what may be the wrong path.
Linn ...... wanna be too!
Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
> Unless they have changed their thoughts since April, Mike and Stu will
> not let you do it, period. What pilots do on their own is their
> choice, but when flying formation it affects all in the flight. If
> that clip falls off when you are least expecting it there will be big
> problems.
> Like I said before,Stu runs the program and he should be the one to
> talk to on this, I am still just a builder, and formation pilot wanna be.
> Dan
> N289DT
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 4:03 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>
> Well, not entirely true. Formation pilots with vernier throttles use
> a clip to hold the button in ..... disabling the vernier function.
> Linn
>
> Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
>
>>
>>More food for thought on this, if you ever plan on flying formation,
>>Verniers are not allowed as they do not allow quick enough throttle
>>changes, you will have to use regular push pulls or the quadrant. This
>>was stated at the ground schools for the FFI.
>>I personally plan on formation with the Ohio Valley Rvators, so make the
>>best choice for the type of flying you plan on doing.
>>Dan
>>RV10E (N289DT)
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
>>Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:55 AM
>>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>>
>>
>>Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables
>>were in a different location (they probably can be the
>>same from quadrant to vernier), but that I wanted to use
>>eyeball passthroughs because the dual snap-bushing thing just
>>didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some
>>would disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum rivets
>>holding the firewall on though), but it's got to be better than
>>snap bushings. They allow you to start angling that cable
>>so it comes out of the firewall at an angle that you wish for
>>better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill the bore
>>to your cable size for perfect fit.
>>
>>The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3
>>holes out for snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted
>>to use the 2 outer holes and then drill another below them
>>in the middle. (the holes would run together if I drilled
>>all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
>>ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area
>>got chewed up. Had I not pre-drilled the holes, it would
>>have been simple, but I made the mistake of first attempting
>>snap bushings.
>>
>>So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal
>>shop where they gave me some stainless scrap, and bought
>>a "patch" that I could drill properly, and then rivet and
>>red RTV in place to make it all good again. I got slightly
>>thicker stainless as well.
>>
>>For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not
>>going with the quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like
>>them here too if they don't work like 220RV. But you can
>>be reassured that the quadrant offers smoothness and precision...
>>and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution
>>Kelly. If you haven't flown one (of this type specifically,
>>it's worth a try. They're nice.
>>
>>Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>>do not archive
>>
>>
>>Paul Grimstad wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Changes?
>>>
>>>Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil cooler recess for
>>>cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells us again how
>>>much he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the spring of 05'
>>>I was planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed up at the
>>>
>>>
>>EAA105
>>
>>
>>>fly in. That changed my mind. Life is all about change, isn't it? Tim
>>>how did you cap off those cable holes? I remember you drilled them out
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>and then later found the quadrant runs in a different location?
>>>
>>>Bill DeRouchey, I am going to be in Santa Cruz for Thanksgiving. Will
>>>you be around home? I'd love to see the paint job.
>>>
>>>Paul Grimstad
>>>RV10 40450 with holes to fill
>>>Portland, OR 97219
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
>>> *Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
>>>
>>> A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went unresponded
>>> to. For those few who have not made their decision or are still
>>> open to input on the subject of choice. It has been said that the
>>> Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item first learned by
>>> instruction or experience is most often retained. Example, most
>>> pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing. Those who learn on
>>> Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with Vernier cables, tend
>>> to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have flown High
>>> Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with throttle quadrants
>>>
>>>
>>on
>>
>>
>>> turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose throttle
>>>
>>>
>>quadrants.
>>
>>
>>> The choice of throttle quadrants allows the competent pilot to
>>> control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
>>> Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a learned skill.
>>>
>>>
>>Add
>>
>>
>>> Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive cables are
>>> automatically replaced with a quadrant and the discussion is over.
>>>
>>> Just food for thought which no one commented on after the valuable
>>> observation.
>>>
>>> John Cox
>>>
>>> #40600
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
>>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
>>> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
>>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
>>.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>*
>>>
>>>
>>>*
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
>href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
>href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
>href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
Message 61
| 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: Kits and Family |
Dan Checkoway has a nice page on his site about fitting in the wife, family,
and work. It's a fun read.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: <mgeans@provide.net>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 1:02 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Kits and Family
>
> All,
>
> I don't know if this subject has come up but here goes.
>
> My wife (if we're allowed to bring them up in the list) was
> interestingly peering over my shoulder when her rubber
> stamping chat room threads turned to ugly divorces, single
> moms, the coming holidays and the wickedness of the male
> species. She said that my RV-10 list had to be less
> depressing than hers as she and I are very happily married.
>
>
> She did bring up a good point. Has there ever been a
> string about the affects of such a project on the family?
> In the year+ of lurking I had to admit that I had not.
> Building a plane is a huge family commitment and takes
> hundreds/thousands of hours from family.
>
> I am 35 married and our latest child came a month ago which
> makes 2 under 2 years old. I'm leaning toward building but
> am currently in the midst of a career change that will
> better allow me funding to build where my position I'm
> exiting would have taken some time. I still have the
> build/buy question in my head though. We may expand to 3
> kids which will make the -10 difficult and my flop to the
> Murphy line to get 4+2 seating from their recently released
> Yukon which shares the Moose fuselage (thus seating) with
> different powerplant and increased wing sq/ft. Does anyone
> have a larger family than the -10 can hold. (Deems here's
> where your input would equal E.F. Hutton's back in the day)
>
> We would be interested in responses on affects on family
> and maybe what was done to incorporate the building process
> into family life/involvement.
> I would also like anyone who is on the other side of the
> build/buy decision to add thier $.02.
>
> As an exiting business owner working ~65 hrs/wk it seems
> difficult to fit in a kit. But my career change hopefully
> will afford me more time as it will money.
>
> Just fishing here; if anyone has or knows of someone who
> has expirience with international employment and what one
> should be wary of when approaching such an opportunty I
> would be very interested in some offline dialog.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Matt Geans
> Builder Wanna-be
>
>
>
Message 62
| 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: | AOPA engine vendor thoughts |
Thunderbolt has a cold fusion system. Wow! Talk about jumping ahead of
the competition! Heh.
Do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pascal
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 1:36 PM
Subject: RV10-List: AOPA engine vendor thoughts
This year there is an advantage to living in Southern California, that
being that AOPA held the convention 1.5 hours drive away. So I took the
drive up yesterday and took in all the sites. There were a lot of
anxious companies ready to sell me their latest creations, some were
really nice when I explained I had an "experimental RV-10 aircraft"
(well we all know I don't, but I sure as heck wasn't going to go into
details). Most, if not all of them, knew exactly what the plane was,
which means there is a presence in the market, others were kind to
explain their avionics cost as much as the completed RV-10 and yet 1 was
short of completely brushing me off as "we don't have the time to spend
selling to indivduals, have Van's contact us to work something out".
Overall I had an enjoyable experience, this certainly isn't a Oshkosh
but for me the distance made it well worth the effort. I spoke with Gus
from Van's and he was great in taking all the time I needed to discuss
the RV-10, I never led on that I knew he provided the Tech support nor
that I had a clue about the RV-10. He kindly discussed the engineering
of the wing and the idea of adding winglets (like the Lancairs Columbias
have and the new option for the Husky') that adds 5mph in cruise and
that it would add little to no benefit on the RV-10 shaped wings, which
are different that the latter two. He also gave me his thoughts on the
idea of sticking with a Lycoming 540 versus a Continental (higher weight
and more GPH) and other "experimental engines". With that I went out and
saw the vendors and tried to ascertain more knowledge for future
planning.
Lycoming Thunderbolt- I met up with Jon Delamarter and he gave me the
latest on the Thunderbolt engines and the advancements they are making
with a FADEC type concept as well as 10:1 pistons and a cold fusion
system, I could tell he was really excited about the future technology
that Thunderbolt is coming out with in the next year and the competitive
pricing. I left pretty excited myself seeing where they have gotten
since starting up and what is yet to come from them.
SMA- I'll try to be nice here but I was totally disappointed with them.
I figured they had a good case for less GPH higher TBO of 3K hrs,
integrated engine monitoring and using diesel but the sales guy attitude
mysteriusly diminished when I told them I wanted it for an experimental,
he simply didn't see my as a potential customer, to the people around me
they handed out brochures and went through it with them, with me there
was nothing, no brochure no "need" to review and the advice to get
everyone to tell Van's that they need to contact SMA so builders can use
the engines but until Van's does (which I understand they have no
interest in anything other than what Gus mentioned, the Lycoming) SMA
has no interest in working with the builders- to hell with them I
thought and moved on to better solutions.
Superior XP400- Interesting is what I thought. They have the XP400SRE
that can put out 250hp, it was tested in the Lancair @ the Reno races
and seemed like an option, I found it interesting, maybe because there
is only the one engine out there but the sales guy, although very nice,
really didn't know much about the engine.. how much does.will it cost?,
what is the GPH? what is the TBO? can I build this engine like the
XP-360?, etc.. his response "I'll look that up in my binder... hmm
nothing there.. sorry, shame on me but I don't have the answer" is what
I got for each question.
I saw numerous avionics in action, Op Tech, Dynon, Garmin, Chelton and
they all have great features and nice looking displays, although Optech
had the best support crew (in regards to explaining all the features and
admitting future fixes for gaps, Chelton seemed to address those gaps
headon with "current fix in new release" for people like Tim, I
overheard there is a new code released for the Chelton that is far
superior to the previous version, or so the sales person was telling a
potential customer, it is either still beta or just released but worth
looking into.
Based on the convention I am sold on the Van's support from Gus, he took
his time, never felt rushed and the answers were honest, well researched
and to the point. Engine wise, I am even more sold on the Thunderbolt, a
new engine with custom options and a rep that knew his engine, pricing,
current developments and anxious to work with the RV-10 builders to get
us the right engine for our plane.. the other vendors just didn't seem
to even come close to this.
Overall, a great experience!
Pascal
Message 63
| 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: Kits and Family |
But,
if you're going to put 3 kids in the equation, and you seek
the lifestyle you read about on my site, then you're looking
at the wrong plane here, so you may want to look further
at other planes.
maybe not Tim............See my letter to Ken Kruger below and his response.
Zack
> Ok guys.....
>
> I'm having a ball building this RV10 especially after building an RV8 and
> flying it for over 6 years and 1000 hours. I can't wait to finish the 10
> but I am already thinking about a bigger plane!
>
> After cruising through several aviation magazines, I thought it would be
> useful to have a 6 place plane that could transform into a heavy hauler
> /sleeping quarters by removing the rear seats if needed.
>
> Any interest in this idea? Maybe you could stretch the 10 a little? I
> certainly would buy one if you produced it!
>
> Joe "Zack" Czachorowski
> RV8
> RV10 (half way there)
_________________
RV8 #80125
RV10 # 40512
Hi Joe,
You are not the first to make this suggestion...are you surprised? As
the cost, time, and hassel factor of flying airlines goes up and up while
the airlines' customer service goes down and down, there may be an
emerging market for a six seat RV-10.
Thanks for your thoughts! So long for now,
Ken Krueger, Engineer
Van's Aircraft
--------
RV8 #80125
RV10 # 40512
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=74332#74332
Message 64
| 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: | Mini Jets - Think about the possibiities |
The link even says it is bogus and nothing more than an urban myth.
Michael
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Mini Jets - Think about the possibiities
There is plenty of evidence that the alleged Jato Rocket car never was
more than someone's idea of a good ficitional story. Living near where
it allegedly happened, with statements from the DPS(Highway Patrol) that
there was never such an event, along with the impossible physics, as in
no lifting surface on a car to generate anywhere near enough lift, lack
of sufficient thrust, etc, you can just dump all references to that
story as hogwash.
On 11/13/06, Lloyd, Daniel R. <LloydDR@wernerco.com> wrote:
> --> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
>
> Myth busters proved you could not get an impala airborne, they did get
> it going fast enough to need a Helicopter to chase it down though.
> They did this in the pilot #1, can be found here
> <http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/00to49/episode_
> 11.html> All jesting aside, when I was in the Navy and first heard
> about this, we all had the same reaction...I wonder how we can go over
to the air side and talk the guys into trying it, you better believe we
would have tried it. We even talked about putting one on a boat in
Newport Harbor and seeing what would happen! Youth and stupidity go hand
in hand!
> Dan
>
Message 65
| 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: Lyc Knockoff 92 octane compatable |
Motor Gas...or gas used in any gas motor that doesn't fly...things that fly get
AVGAS or Jet Fuel (JP-whatever depending on the grade)...MOGAS has been used
in airplanes as Linn attests to and many others have used it as well, but in
daze of old and 100LL-a-plenty why would you want to use MOGAS and foul your engine?
This was how we easily distinguished the difference in my Air Force days, at the
motor pool, all the pumps said Mogas...followed later by Unleaded. I laways
thought actual MOGAS leaded fuel and low octane (read cheap) like 85 or less.
Others may have other origins...that's my take on the name.
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
Message 66
| 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: | Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables |
Sounds like a good use of duct tape here. Hehe. Sorry, I'm getting
punchy. Finally going to get my project up here from Texas next week.
Going through some serious building withdrawal.
Michael
do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
Well, not entirely true. Formation pilots with vernier throttles use a
clip to hold the button in ..... disabling the vernier function.
Linn
Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
<LloydDR@wernerco.com> <mailto:LloydDR@wernerco.com>
More food for thought on this, if you ever plan on flying
formation,
Verniers are not allowed as they do not allow quick enough
throttle
changes, you will have to use regular push pulls or the
quadrant. This
was stated at the ground schools for the FFI.
I personally plan on formation with the Ohio Valley Rvators, so
make the
best choice for the type of flying you plan on doing.
Dan
RV10E (N289DT)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Olson
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:55 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
<mailto:Tim@MyRV10.com>
Hey Paul, basically what happened to me wasn't that the cables
were in a different location (they probably can be the
same from quadrant to vernier), but that I wanted to use
eyeball passthroughs because the dual snap-bushing thing just
didn't cut it for me. My eyeballs are aluminum, which some
would disagree with (they don't disagree with the aluminum
rivets
holding the firewall on though), but it's got to be better than
snap bushings. They allow you to start angling that cable
so it comes out of the firewall at an angle that you wish for
better routing, and aluminum allows you to drill the bore
to your cable size for perfect fit.
The situatio that happened is that I had already drilled the 3
holes out for snap bushings. To use eyeballs, I only wanted
to use the 2 outer holes and then drill another below them
in the middle. (the holes would run together if I drilled
all 3. Well, as I unibit drilled the outer 2 holes, they
ran into the drilled center hole, and that whole area
got chewed up. Had I not pre-drilled the holes, it would
have been simple, but I made the mistake of first attempting
snap bushings.
So to fix it, I cut out the mangled metal, went to a metal
shop where they gave me some stainless scrap, and bought
a "patch" that I could drill properly, and then rivet and
red RTV in place to make it all good again. I got slightly
thicker stainless as well.
For what it's worth, I'm not saying you made a mistake not
going with the quadrant. If you like Verniers, you may like
them here too if they don't work like 220RV. But you can
be reassured that the quadrant offers smoothness and
precision...
and yes, even on the mixture side to the .1 gph resolution
Kelly. If you haven't flown one (of this type specifically,
it's worth a try. They're nice.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Paul Grimstad wrote:
Changes?
Wouldn't you know it, I just drilled out the SS oil
cooler recess for
cables. Then Scott brings up the quadrant and Tim tells
us again how
much he likes them. Feels like I made a mistake. In the
spring of 05'
I was planning to build a 9A until Randy Debauw showed
up at the
EAA105
fly in. That changed my mind. Life is all about change,
isn't it? Tim
how did you cap off those cable holes? I remember you
drilled them out
and then later found the quadrant runs in a different
location?
Bill DeRouchey, I am going to be in Santa Cruz for
Thanksgiving. Will
you be around home? I'd love to see the paint job.
Paul Grimstad
RV10 40450 with holes to fill
Portland, OR 97219
----- Original Message -----
*From:* John W. Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
<mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
*To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
<mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com> <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
*Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:33 AM
*Subject:* RV10-List: Quadrant vs. Vernier Cables
A comment was made (I believe from Scott) which went
unresponded
to. For those few who have not made their decision
or are still
open to input on the subject of choice. It has been
said that the
Law of Primacy prevails in aviation. That item
first learned by
instruction or experience is most often retained.
Example, most
pilot who learn on High wing prefer High Wing.
Those who learn on
Low wing prefer low wing. Those who fly with
Vernier cables, tend
to choose cables for their RV-10. Those who have
flown High
Performance aircraft (those over 200 hp) with
throttle quadrants
on
turboprop or turbine or multi then tend to chose
throttle
quadrants.
The choice of throttle quadrants allows the
competent pilot to
control Throttle-Prop-Mixture with multiple digits -
Simultaneously. Much like piano playing it is a
learned skill.
Add
Multi-Engine into the mix and the more primitive
cables are
automatically replaced with a quadrant and the
discussion is over.
Just food for thought which no one commented on
after the valuable
observation.
John Cox
#40600
*
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com"
<http://www.aeroelectric.com> >www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com"
<http://www.buildersbooks.com> >www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com" <http://www.kitlog.com>
>www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com"
<http://www.homebuilthelp.com> >www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List> >http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
*
*
*
Message 67
| 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: AOPA engine vendor thoughts |
Yeah, they've got one, but when asked for a price @ Copperstate, John C.
and I were quoted almost $9K !!!!!!!!!!!! That's not too competitive.
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
http://deemsrv10.com/
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> Thunderbolt has a cold fusion system. Wow! Talk about jumping ahead
> of the competition! Heh.
>
> Do not archive
>
>*
>*
>
Message 68
| 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: Kits and Family |
You know stretching the -10 may not be a bad idea. Increasing the moment would
help the flare, move the CG back a few inches and alleviate the bag of lead in
the back seat.
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
Message 69
| 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: | AOPA engine vendor thoughts |
MICHAEL!!!.....................heh heh
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 4:11 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: AOPA engine vendor thoughts
Thunderbolt has a cold fusion system. Wow! Talk about jumping ahead of
the competition! Heh.
Do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pascal
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 1:36 PM
Subject: RV10-List: AOPA engine vendor thoughts
This year there is an advantage to living in Southern California, that
being that AOPA held the convention 1.5 hours drive away. So I took the
drive up yesterday and took in all the sites. There were a lot of
anxious companies ready to sell me their latest creations, some were
really nice when I explained I had an "experimental RV-10 aircraft"
(well we all know I don't, but I sure as heck wasn't going to go into
details). Most, if not all of them, knew exactly what the plane was,
which means there is a presence in the market, others were kind to
explain their avionics cost as much as the completed RV-10 and yet 1 was
short of completely brushing me off as "we don't have the time to spend
selling to indivduals, have Van's contact us to work something out".
Overall I had an enjoyable experience, this certainly isn't a Oshkosh
but for me the distance made it well worth the effort. I spoke with Gus
from Van's and he was great in taking all the time I needed to discuss
the RV-10, I never led on that I knew he provided the Tech support nor
that I had a clue about the RV-10. He kindly discussed the engineering
of the wing and the idea of adding winglets (like the Lancairs Columbias
have and the new option for the Husky') that adds 5mph in cruise and
that it would add little to no benefit on the RV-10 shaped wings, which
are different that the latter two. He also gave me his thoughts on the
idea of sticking with a Lycoming 540 versus a Continental (higher weight
and more GPH) and other "experimental engines". With that I went out and
saw the vendors and tried to ascertain more knowledge for future
planning.
Lycoming Thunderbolt- I met up with Jon Delamarter and he gave me the
latest on the Thunderbolt engines and the advancements they are making
with a FADEC type concept as well as 10:1 pistons and a cold fusion
system, I could tell he was really excited about the future technology
that Thunderbolt is coming out with in the next year and the competitive
pricing. I left pretty excited myself seeing where they have gotten
since starting up and what is yet to come from them.
SMA- I'll try to be nice here but I was totally disappointed with them.
I figured they had a good case for less GPH higher TBO of 3K hrs,
integrated engine monitoring and using diesel but the sales guy attitude
mysteriusly diminished when I told them I wanted it for an experimental,
he simply didn't see my as a potential customer, to the people around me
they handed out brochures and went through it with them, with me there
was nothing, no brochure no "need" to review and the advice to get
everyone to tell Van's that they need to contact SMA so builders can use
the engines but until Van's does (which I understand they have no
interest in anything other than what Gus mentioned, the Lycoming) SMA
has no interest in working with the builders- to hell with them I
thought and moved on to better solutions.
Superior XP400- Interesting is what I thought. They have the XP400SRE
that can put out 250hp, it was tested in the Lancair @ the Reno races
and seemed like an option, I found it interesting, maybe because there
is only the one engine out there but the sales guy, although very nice,
really didn't know much about the engine.. how much does.will it cost?,
what is the GPH? what is the TBO? can I build this engine like the
XP-360?, etc.. his response "I'll look that up in my binder... hmm
nothing there.. sorry, shame on me but I don't have the answer" is what
I got for each question.
I saw numerous avionics in action, Op Tech, Dynon, Garmin, Chelton and
they all have great features and nice looking displays, although Optech
had the best support crew (in regards to explaining all the features and
admitting future fixes for gaps, Chelton seemed to address those gaps
headon with "current fix in new release" for people like Tim, I
overheard there is a new code released for the Chelton that is far
superior to the previous version, or so the sales person was telling a
potential customer, it is either still beta or just released but worth
looking into.
Based on the convention I am sold on the Van's support from Gus, he took
his time, never felt rushed and the answers were honest, well researched
and to the point. Engine wise, I am even more sold on the Thunderbolt, a
new engine with custom options and a rep that knew his engine, pricing,
current developments and anxious to work with the RV-10 builders to get
us the right engine for our plane.. the other vendors just didn't seem
to even come close to this.
Overall, a great experience!
Pascal
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Message 70
| 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: | Eggenfellner's dual battery requirements. |
No idea what Egg wants but many of us are doing dual batteries and in
some cases a third for emergency power to a EI. Basically a pair of
PC680's are the most common mod. I have some stuff on it here:
http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=msausen&project=22&ca
tegory=0&log=14145&row=69
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:23 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Eggenfellner's dual battery requirements.
--> <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
I looked in the archives and found mention of this but did not see any
photos.
Can anyone direct me to the location to find pictures of this setup. D.
Lloyd, if I recal correctly, have you worked on this yet?
Any one else going planning on this route.
Thanks,
John G. 409
Message 71
| 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: | Fuel float positioning and proseal |
Tim... Thanks for the food for thought. It is certainly not a major deal but was
curious what other builders thought. Also, I'd imagine every certified airplane
out there has their senders installed exactly the same way.
Jae
Do not archive
Message 72
| 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: | Fuel float positioning and proseal |
Jeff... Thanks. That's interesting to know what van's take is. Although, I think
1/8" clearance might be too little to prevent the chattering.
Capacitance senders, hmm... Will have to think about that one. ;)
Also, it's a good sign that Van's is still tweaking or "optimizing" the -10
design.
Jae
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel float positioning and proseal
Hi Jae,
The word I got from Vans is that you want to bend the wire so that the plastic
arm bottoms out with the float resting about 1/8" above the base of the tank.
That will keep the float from chattering against the tank skin when empty.
I was ultimately uncomfortable with the float clearances, and have left the
baffles off the tanks in anticipation of the capacitance senders the Vans is
working on for the 10.
Last I checked, they didn't have a completion date scheduled, but they were
working on it. With my flaps half done, my ailerons yet to be touched and my
fuselage sitting in the crate, I figure I've got plenty of time before I'll
really need to close up those tanks.
Jeff Carpenter
40304
Message 73
| 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: Kits and Family |
HA!! I can only imagine how long it will be until one of the RV-10
builers.... HECK, maybe even one of the CURRENT builders, decides
to stretch the nose and tail a bit and throw in one more row of
seats. Having seen photos of the 4-seat RV-6 before, I have no
doubt that it'll happen. I think it would be a while before
Van's would go that route though. They seem hesitant enough to
push the insurance liability thing with 4 seats. If they did
though, that would certainly be the plane!
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
zackrv8 wrote:
>
> But,
> if you're going to put 3 kids in the equation, and you seek
> the lifestyle you read about on my site, then you're looking
> at the wrong plane here, so you may want to look further
> at other planes.
>
>
>
> maybe not Tim............See my letter to Ken Kruger below and his response.
>
> Zack
>
>
>
>
> Hi Joe,
> You are not the first to make this suggestion...are you surprised? As
> the cost, time, and hassel factor of flying airlines goes up and up while
> the airlines' customer service goes down and down, there may be an
> emerging market for a six seat RV-10.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts! So long for now,
>
> Ken Krueger, Engineer
> Van's Aircraft
>
> --------
> RV8 #80125
> RV10 # 40512
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=74332#74332
>
>
>
Message 74
| 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: Kits and Family |
You've had a lot of good responses and I agree with all of them. I will add that
I changed positions with my current employer not too long after I started on
my tailkit. My new position has dramatically more travel, and with family changes
(kids transitioning to adults, grandchild, etc), I find that I don't have
anywhere close to the amount of time that I used to on the kit.
As others have mentioned, family and employment must come first. This is a major
time commitment (1600-2200 hours) so you can do the math for yourself. Problem
comes when you don't align your expectations with reality.
Assuming the RV-10 is the best fit for your mission profile, just get a shovel
and start moving the mountain.
Bob #40105
90% done...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=74354#74354
Message 75
| 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: Fuel float positioning and proseal |
One more thing....could you not bend them slightly so they have just
slightly less travel and they just barely make it to the top
and bottom? On the lower end, it'll take almost nothing to get them
floating off the bottom. On the high end, they'll be plastered
up against the stops until the fuel level drops about 6 gallons,
and then soon after they'll be heading down.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jae Chang wrote:
>
> Tim... Thanks for the food for thought. It is certainly not a major deal but
was
> curious what other builders thought. Also, I'd imagine every certified airplane
> out there has their senders installed exactly the same way.
>
> Jae
> Do not archive
>
Message 76
| 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: | AOPA engine vendor thoughts |
Cold Fusion and Flux Capacitors - McFly or was that Keanu Reaves?
A few on this list are not aware of the stock differences between
Continental and Lycoming designs on the treatment of induction fuel/air
delivery. Barrett makes a remarkable Cold Air Induction system worthy
of some research. With the first generation James Cowl, modifications
to Cold Air Induction triggered a second generation. Advantages and
disadvantages have not yet been posted here, even in light of Jon's
youthful exuberance from Thunderbolt and Pascal's enthusiasm at the AOPA
convention. It may have been sun stroke.
Delivering a quality and well balance air/fuel charge with maximum
volumetric efficiency can lead to higher performance and fuel economy.
Something our dependence on a reliable fuel source is critically
connected to.
Anh, I am still on the edge of my seat regarding your fuel solution and
whether your vendor had anything to do with it. We play hell with
French Canadians providing world class parts service at work. Seems
they are about to shut down for a month long holiday.
Choose a vendor with a track record and one who will stand by you during
these times of pain.
John Cox #600
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: AOPA engine vendor thoughts
Yeah, they've got one, but when asked for a price @ Copperstate, John C.
and I were quoted almost $9K !!!!!!!!!!!! That's not too competitive.
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
http://deemsrv10.com/
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> Thunderbolt has a cold fusion system. Wow! Talk about jumping ahead
> of the competition! Heh.
>
> Do not archive
>
>*
>*
>
Message 77
| 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: Kits and Family |
As the wife of a man about to embark on building a '10' and a mother of
5 small children, i thought i wound put my 10 cents in for what it's
worth!
I would like to point out that i have one amazing husband who on the
decision of learning to fly wanted me beside him learning too. So we
are now a 2 pilot family as well. I don't really know what we will do
when the bench seat gets too small but then i guess we will cross that
bridge when we get there. Buy a matching pair?!
I hope the husband is reading that bit!
we looked at other options but still came back to the 10. But then
runway had a lot to do with it. i guess each situation is different. I
have to trust that Neil has made the right decision as i am still up to
the eyeballs in nappies and schoolwork rather than flying at the
moment. I would like to be much more involved in the building than I
will be , just because of my responsibilities. But just as the children
were right their beside us while we learnt to fly ( They knew radio
calls and runway directions better than most!), they will be right
there watching each stage. I wouldn't like to say how involved they
will be allowed to get, but they will be there. And they will be the
better for it. I have other projects ( quilting, stamping, etc) to keep
me busy in the evenings so i hope i am well prepared to go through it
again!
And at the end of the day the shed is only 20m away so I can potter
over and provide some light relief.
Life is too short not to live your dreams.
We have built a micro-light before and we more than survived, but this
is a much bigger project and I know how optimistic my Neil can be on
time scale (we have lived in many a half built house) , so I am
preparing myself for a long time. But tis only for a season. But I
could never stand in his way . I think most men like to have their
woman there supporting them and believing in them, even if it is in the
small ways. We can't always be right there beside them but we can let
them know that we are interested and we can listen (even if the techno
stuff goes over the head!!).
Maybe this is more for wives. But i agree with Rhonda,> My father never
got to learn to fly but was in the aviation business all his life and
that fostered a love of aviation in me. I have lived out his dreams.
Neil's interest in flying only came about after we got to NZ about 3.5
yrs ago, and has been truly bitten by the bug, but then God had
provided the right wife for him!
I do remember getting very frustrated (when building the Savannah) at
weekend building, as I felt that I had been with children all week and
needed some time out. This was far worse than the evenings. But then I
was pregnant with no 4 at the time and the eldest was 5! and I was
tired with a capital T.
Seeing the end project though .... and enjoying it.......! i guess
it's the closest you guys get to knowing what child birth is like!!
Neil has always had his priorities right as well . He will and has
dropped everything for us when needed.
Sarah Colliver
On 14 Nov 2006, at 9:24, Rhonda Bewley wrote:
> <Rhonda@BPAENGINES.com>
>
> Matt:
>
> As one of few females on this list, I'd like to give my input. My dad
> started building his first airplane when I was only 8. Of course that
> was only about 12 years ago :-)!! He had four kids, a wife who worked
> full-time and a demanding job as a corporate pilot at the time. Some
> of
> my fondest memories of my childhood revolve around spending
> nights/weekends in the garage and at the airport with my dad. Not only
> did it foster my love of aviation, but I can also identify tools! Give
> it a go.
>
> Rhonda Barrett-Bewley
> Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
> Tulsa, OK
> www.barrettprecisionengines.com
>
> do not archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:43 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Kits and Family
>
>
> Matt, I'm building alone and have no age appropriate kids to this
> discussion
> (mine are in their 20's), but, man, I'd let things settle for a bit if
> you're moving to a new job, etc. You also might find a "good" deal on
> a
> Bonanza 36 or even a Cherokee 6, if you want to haul all the little
> ones
> and
> get to flying. The commitment and time of the RV-10 with family is
> best
> answered by such dynamos as Tim Olson and others. I just know that it
> is
> huge and should not come before family and job. Several builders have
> had
> their kids helping, but sounds as if yours are not of that age, yet.
> The
> wife needs to be extremely supportive and enthusiastic, because it is a
> long
> journey. As for the Murphy, if you think these 10's take time.........
>
> John Jessen
> #40328
>
> Do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> mgeans@provide.net
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:02 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Kits and Family
>
>
> All,
>
> I don't know if this subject has come up but here goes.
>
> My wife (if we're allowed to bring them up in the list) was
> interestingly
> peering over my shoulder when her rubber stamping chat room threads
> turned
> to ugly divorces, single moms, the coming holidays and the wickedness
> of
> the
> male species. She said that my RV-10 list had to be less depressing
> than
> hers as she and I are very happily married.
>
>
> She did bring up a good point. Has there ever been a string about the
> affects of such a project on the family?
> In the year+ of lurking I had to admit that I had not.
> Building a plane is a huge family commitment and takes
> hundreds/thousands of
> hours from family.
>
> I am 35 married and our latest child came a month ago which makes 2
> under 2
> years old. I'm leaning toward building but am currently in the midst
> of
> a
> career change that will better allow me funding to build where my
> position
> I'm exiting would have taken some time. I still have the build/buy
> question
> in my head though. We may expand to 3 kids which will make the -10
> difficult and my flop to the Murphy line to get 4+2 seating from their
> recently released Yukon which shares the Moose fuselage (thus seating)
> with
> different powerplant and increased wing sq/ft. Does anyone have a
> larger
> family than the -10 can hold. (Deems here's where your input would
> equal
> E.F. Hutton's back in the day)
>
> We would be interested in responses on affects on family and maybe what
> was
> done to incorporate the building process into family life/involvement.
> I would also like anyone who is on the other side of the build/buy
> decision
> to add thier $.02.
>
> As an exiting business owner working ~65 hrs/wk it seems difficult to
> fit in
> a kit. But my career change hopefully will afford me more time as it
> will
> money.
>
> Just fishing here; if anyone has or knows of someone who has expirience
> with
> international employment and what one should be wary of when
> approaching
> such an opportunty I would be very interested in some offline dialog.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Matt Geans
> Builder Wanna-be
>
>
> --
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>
>
Neil, Sarah, Jonathan, Matthew, Hannah, Zac + James
Message 78
| 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: AOPA engine vendor thoughts |
You are thinking cold induction, he said Cold Fusion! I would think you could
do warp, or at least ludicrous speed with that.
Do not archive
>Yeah, they've got one, but when asked for a price @ Copperstate, John C.
>and I were quoted almost $9K !!!!!!!!!!!! That's not too >competitive.
>
>Deems Davis # 406
>Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
>http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>>RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>>
>> Thunderbolt has a cold fusion system. Wow! Talk about jumping ahead
>> of the competition! Heh.
>>
>> Do not archive
William Curtis 40237
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
Message 79
| 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: Lyc Knockoff 92 octane compatable |
Matt, you're terribly perceptive. With your high level of intelligence,
you'll make an excellent builder!!! :-D
Linn
mgeans@provide.net wrote:
>
>Pardon my ignorance, all.
>
>What is the difference between mogas and the auto fuel at
>my local Shell station? None? Is mogas what the aviation
>techies call car gas? IE mo-tor gas-oline?
>
>Matt Geans
>Builder Wanna-be
>Do Not Archive
>
>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:24:21 -0500
> linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>><pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>>
>>I burn 92 octane in my Pitts. The engine is an
>>O-360-A-4A. I think it's 8.5 or 9.5 ...... can't recall.
>> Been using mogas in it for 25 years now. It sees 3300
>>to 3400 RPM a lot when I'm trying to disorient myself.
>>:-P I've never had any problems with mogas ..... with
>>the exception of when I got some fuel with alcohol in it.
>> Ate up all the rubber diaphragms in the PS-5 carb and
>>the fuel pump. Lesson learned.
>>Linn
>>do not archive
>>
>>mgeans@provide.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Has anyone heard of or had exposure to an experimental
>>>assembled and tested engine with the correct combustion
>>>ration (I think is 8 or 8.5:1) that will allow the use
>>>
>>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>>92 octane auto fuel?
>>>I met an seasoned hanger flyer once who suggested that I
>>>find the engine that I want to use and then fit an
>>>
>>>
>>airframe
>>
>>
>>>to it that will suit my needs to alleviate a lot of
>>>headache.
>>>I think Kitplanes has touched on this in the past
>>>
>>>
>>possibly
>>
>>
>>>with Mftrs as Superior or Titan (engines not kits as in
>>>Tornado or T-51). Don't quote me on the Mftr's as I
>>>
>>>
>>don't
>>
>>
>>>recall who they were only that they would take the auto
>>>fuel. This could be a promising addition to an airframe
>>>which could pass the time line of avgas extinction. It
>>>would also be cost effective.
>>>This might spark (no pun intended) the auto vs avgas
>>>
>>>
>>"war"
>>
>>
>>>as I've seen such discussions referred to before.
>>>
>>>Matt Geans
>>>Builder Wanna-be
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Admin.
>>
>>page,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 80
| 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: | Okay - Okay tell me I'm just sarcastic on the RV-12 |
After studying in-depth the VANS website on the RV-12, am I mistaken or
is glass EFIS okay for the RV-12 but not for an RV-10 where the panel
ribs were intentionally placed to interfere with glass EFIS insertion.
Amber Peterson, Rian Johnson and Phil Rivall are to be commended for
bringing VANS into the 21st century (only six years late) with
Solidworks engineering. It was also exciting to see them incorporate a
panel insert for a Garmin 496/396/296 or 196. Now anyone want to take
bets they will never ever redesign the panel ribs on the RV-10 out of
shear stubbornness?
<http://www.vansaircraft.com/images/RV-12/inst_panel.jpg>
Did anyone else note the ergonomically canted panel as well. Directly
perpendicular into the pilot's eyes for ease of scanning.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/images/RV-12/12crew_prepares.jpg
John Cox
#40600
Do not Archive
Message 81
| 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: Lyc Knockoff 92 octane compatable |
Rick wrote:
>
>Motor Gas...or gas used in any gas motor that doesn't fly...things that fly get
AVGAS or Jet Fuel (JP-whatever depending on the grade)...MOGAS has been used
in airplanes as Linn attests to and many others have used it as well, but in
daze of old and 100LL-a-plenty why would you want to use MOGAS and foul your
engine?
>
Foul your engine??? The whole reason I went to mogas (auto fuel) is
that I got tired of cleaning the rocks (lead) out of my plugs!!! At
that time, using mogas was akin to heresy. I didn't really want to go
through the hassle of sneaking my fuel onto the airport and into my
airplane, but the hassle of the plugs was bigger.
>This was how we easily distinguished the difference in my Air Force days, at the
motor pool, all the pumps said Mogas...followed later by Unleaded. I laways
thought actual MOGAS leaded fuel and low octane (read cheap) like 85 or less.
Others may have other origins...that's my take on the name.
>
Really??? They said mogas??? I have to admit that the only place I put
(military) gas in the vehicles ...... the pump didn't say anything but
how many gallons! No labels, no octane rating .... nothing! There were
two pumps .... diesel and gasoline. Life was much simpler then!!!
Linn
>
>
>Rick S.
>40185
>
>do not archive
>
>
>
>
Message 82
| 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: AOPA engine vendor thoughts |
Ya, I thought that was funny. Incidentally besides being rather
expensive, I believe the Lycoming version is also a fair amount heavier
than other aftermarket versions such as Barrett's.
Michael
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of W. Curtis
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:59 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: AOPA engine vendor thoughts
You are thinking cold induction, he said Cold Fusion! I would think you
could do warp, or at least ludicrous speed with that.
Do not archive
>Yeah, they've got one, but when asked for a price @ Copperstate, John
C.
>and I were quoted almost $9K !!!!!!!!!!!! That's not too >competitive.
>
>Deems Davis # 406
>Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
>http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>>RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>>
>> Thunderbolt has a cold fusion system. Wow! Talk about jumping ahead
>> of the competition! Heh.
>>
>> Do not archive
William Curtis 40237
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
Message 83
| 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: AOPA engine vendor thoughts |
Paul, speak up on this one, both from delivery weight (sans alternator
and starter) along with final cost. Jon needs some support on the Cold
Fusion thing. Delivery commitment to the builder from time of payment
receipt is also a valued benchmark. There are a lot of six cylinder
engine sales coming in the next 12 months.
Bridge to Engineering: "Warp Factor Six Scotty".
Engineering reply: "But Captain, I'm giving her all she's got but those
rotary Mazda's are closing in on us. I don't' think the Cold Fusion
unit will hold together much longer".
John C
Please Do not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:45 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: AOPA engine vendor thoughts
Ya, I thought that was funny. Incidentally besides being rather
expensive, I believe the Lycoming version is also a fair amount heavier
than other aftermarket versions such as Barrett's.
Michael
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of W. Curtis
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:59 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: AOPA engine vendor thoughts
You are thinking cold induction, he said Cold Fusion! I would think you
could do warp, or at least ludicrous speed with that.
Do not archive
>Yeah, they've got one, but when asked for a price @ Copperstate, John
C.
>and I were quoted almost $9K !!!!!!!!!!!! That's not too >competitive.
>
>Deems Davis # 406
>Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
>http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>>RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>>
>> Thunderbolt has a cold fusion system. Wow! Talk about jumping ahead
>> of the competition! Heh.
>>
>> Do not archive
William Curtis 40237
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Message 84
| 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: Kits and Family |
Bob
So you are at the hated 90/90 position. So many of us are. When you coming
to Vegas next, haven't seen you since Huntsville.
Bob K
90/90
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bcondrey
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Kits and Family
You've had a lot of good responses and I agree with all of them. I will add
that I changed positions with my current employer not too long after I
started on my tailkit. My new position has dramatically more travel, and
with family changes (kids transitioning to adults, grandchild, etc), I find
that I don't have anywhere close to the amount of time that I used to on the
kit.
As others have mentioned, family and employment must come first. This is a
major time commitment (1600-2200 hours) so you can do the math for yourself.
Problem comes when you don't align your expectations with reality.
Assuming the RV-10 is the best fit for your mission profile, just get a
shovel and start moving the mountain.
Bob #40105
90% done...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=74354#74354
Message 85
| 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: | RV10's near Las Vegas |
I am planning to be in Las Vegas Nov.30 thru Dec. 3rd. Would love to se
e, assist, or fly any RV in the area (prefer Rv10) . If any of you VEGA
S RV guys will be available at that time I would love to hook up.....I w
ill even buy Dinner at the top of the SPHERE if you want. Contact me on
line at DDDDSP@juno.com or 402-560-9755.
Dean 40449
________________________________________________________________________
<html><P>I am planning to be in Las Vegas Nov.30 thru Dec. 3rd. Wo
uld love to see, assist, or fly any RV in the area (prefer Rv10) .
If any of you VEGAS RV guys will be available at that time I would love
to hook up.....I will even buy Dinner at the top of the SPHERE if you w
ant. Contact me online at <A href="mailto:DDDDSP@juno.com">DDDDS
P@juno.com</A> or 402-560-9755.</P>
<P>Dean 40449</P>
<font face="Times-New-Roman" size="2"><br><br>______________________
__________________________________________________<br>
Visit <a href="http://www.juno.com/value">http://www.juno.com/value</a
> to sign up today!<br></font>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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! --
|