Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:18 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (JOHN STARN)
2. 01:27 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (David Boone)
3. 05:44 AM - Re: Fuselage options (preset flaps) (Vern W. Smith)
4. 06:10 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (David M.)
5. 06:17 AM - Re: Fuselage options (preset flaps) (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
6. 06:33 AM - Re: Fuselage options (preset flaps) (jdalton77)
7. 07:15 AM - Re: Intercoms (Jesse Saint)
8. 07:16 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (linn Walters)
9. 07:19 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
10. 07:22 AM - Re: Intercoms (Noel & Yoshie Simmons)
11. 07:22 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
12. 07:25 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
13. 07:44 AM - Re: Intercoms (Doerr, Ray R [NTK])
14. 07:49 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Jesse Saint)
15. 07:50 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Dj Merrill)
16. 07:59 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (John Gonzalez)
17. 08:02 AM - Re: Intercoms (John Gonzalez)
18. 08:02 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Phillips, Jack)
19. 08:05 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Michael Schipper)
20. 08:07 AM - Re: Intercoms (John Gonzalez)
21. 08:08 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Rhonda Bewley)
22. 08:21 AM - Re: Intercoms (Noel & Yoshie Simmons)
23. 08:23 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (linn Walters)
24. 08:25 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Dj Merrill)
25. 08:30 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (linn Walters)
26. 08:35 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (John Gonzalez)
27. 08:38 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Jesse Saint)
28. 08:45 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Bobby J. Hughes)
29. 08:46 AM - Re: Intercoms (Bill DeRouchey)
30. 08:48 AM - Satellite Radio (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
31. 08:58 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
32. 09:13 AM - Rhonda's Comments (John W. Cox)
33. 09:21 AM - Radio and intercom (Jon Reining)
34. 09:49 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Tim Olson)
35. 10:15 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Rick)
36. 10:16 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (W. Curtis)
37. 10:27 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Kelly McMullen)
38. 10:59 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
39. 11:06 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Doerr, Ray R [NTK])
40. 11:07 AM - Insurance Underwriting (John W. Cox)
41. 11:16 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Dj Merrill)
42. 11:26 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Dj Merrill)
43. 11:29 AM - How bout them Broncos!!!! (JOHN STARN)
44. 11:32 AM - Conduit ()
45. 11:45 AM - PSRUs (John W. Cox)
46. 11:45 AM - Re: Insurance Underwriting (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
47. 12:24 PM - Confession (Jeff Carpenter)
48. 12:34 PM - Re: Insurance Underwriting (John W. Cox)
49. 12:44 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (John Gonzalez)
50. 12:45 PM - Re: Radio and intercom (Phillips, Jack)
51. 01:01 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (linn Walters)
52. 01:10 PM - Re: Confession (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
53. 01:25 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Kelly McMullen)
54. 01:36 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (McGANN, Ron)
55. 01:36 PM - Re: Insurance Underwriting (Rick)
56. 01:52 PM - Re: Insurance Underwriting (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
57. 02:12 PM - Re: Confession (Niko)
58. 02:56 PM - Re: Intercoms (Perry Casson)
59. 03:40 PM - Re: Baggage door lock install later? (John Gonzalez)
60. 04:07 PM - Re: access panels (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
61. 04:21 PM - Re: Baggage door lock install later? (Chris Johnston)
62. 04:25 PM - Re: Conduit (Tim Olson)
63. 04:33 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Mark Ritter)
64. 05:04 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Les Kearney)
65. 05:04 PM - Re: Fuselage options (preset flaps) (Jae Chang)
66. 05:13 PM - Just for discussion purposes... (Jeff Carpenter)
67. 05:25 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (bob.kaufmann)
68. 05:41 PM - Re: Just for discussion purposes... (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
69. 05:47 PM - Annual Condition Inspection checklist (GenGrumpy@aol.com)
70. 05:54 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Dj Merrill)
71. 06:04 PM - Re: Confession (John W. Cox)
72. 07:43 PM - Re: Airflow Performance Filter Maintenance (Marcus Cooper)
73. 08:18 PM - Re: Baggage door lock install later? (John Gonzalez)
74. 08:21 PM - Re: access panels (John Gonzalez)
75. 08:48 PM - Re: Conduit (ddddsp1@juno.com)
76. 09:00 PM - FW: Re: This is umm?? This dead horse has three broken legs. (John Gonzalez)
77. 09:03 PM - Re: Conduit (John Gonzalez)
78. 09:09 PM - FW: Re: More engine stuff, four broken legs (John Gonzalez)
79. 09:14 PM - Re: Conduit (Tim Olson)
80. 09:21 PM - Okay mom, I promise I'll bury it, it's starting to smell (John Gonzalez)
81. 09:44 PM - Re: FW: Re: This is umm?? This dead horse has three broken legs. (David McNeill)
82. 11:10 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (noel anderson)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. Thanks Kelly for your detailed data but since I
wanted to built an airplane I can service & keep running all by myself I
think I'll stick with the Old boys. Ya mix air & fuel in the proper amounts
(I control both), run it thru a KISS engine without all the GobbildyGoop
"extra" items required in car engines & go flying. Somehow I just can't see
myself landing at some small airport, have a problem and calling the local
auto dealership & pay for a "housecall" to the airport. As I said before.
YOU make YOUR choice, spend YOUR money & take YOUR chances. That's what make
experiential aircraft building so great. KABONG Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
> -->If you took away their closed loop
> feedback fuel computers, they would lose 90% of the benefit of the
> computer..see what happens when you have a failed O2 sensor for fuel
> economy. O2 sensors can't live with any lead. Their systems are not
> optimized for economy, because doing so would maximize NOx emissions,
> generating more smog. They have to run a little rich to have some CO
> in the exhaust to work with the reducing portion of the catalyst,
> creating N2 and O2 from NOx, before the exhaust goes into the
> oxidizing chamber to turn CO to CO2 and HC to H2O and CO2. Their
> electronic injectors(not all cars have them) are sensitive to varnish
> and gum and dirt, which is why you see a lot of service places pushing
> injection cleaning, and a detergency specification had to be added for
> mogas. When a single injector electronics fail, so does delivery of
> any fuel to that cylinder..not what you really want in air. The German
> manufacturers use a good Bosch continuous flow injection system, but
> it too requires closed loop feedback mixture control. Nobody has done
> much development work on what mixture programming would be optimal for
> aircraft, partly because there isn't an optimum..if your mission is
> economy/max range you can go max lean at the lowest power that keeps
> the plane in the air. If you want 75% cruise, then there are other
> compromises to make. No one setting fits all situations, so you would
> have to have some form of override or mode select switch...another
> point of failure.
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: Eggenfellner |
What does KABONG mean.
----- Original Message -----
From: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
> KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. Thanks Kelly for your detailed data but since
> I wanted to built an airplane I can service & keep running all by myself I
> think I'll stick with the Old boys. Ya mix air & fuel in the proper
> amounts (I control both), run it thru a KISS engine without all the
> GobbildyGoop "extra" items required in car engines & go flying. Somehow I
> just can't see myself landing at some small airport, have a problem and
> calling the local auto dealership & pay for a "housecall" to the airport.
> As I said before. YOU make YOUR choice, spend YOUR money & take YOUR
> chances. That's what make experiential aircraft building so great. KABONG
> Do Not Archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 9:31 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
>> -->If you took away their closed loop
>> feedback fuel computers, they would lose 90% of the benefit of the
>> computer..see what happens when you have a failed O2 sensor for fuel
>> economy. O2 sensors can't live with any lead. Their systems are not
>> optimized for economy, because doing so would maximize NOx emissions,
>> generating more smog. They have to run a little rich to have some CO
>> in the exhaust to work with the reducing portion of the catalyst,
>> creating N2 and O2 from NOx, before the exhaust goes into the
>> oxidizing chamber to turn CO to CO2 and HC to H2O and CO2. Their
>> electronic injectors(not all cars have them) are sensitive to varnish
>> and gum and dirt, which is why you see a lot of service places pushing
>> injection cleaning, and a detergency specification had to be added for
>> mogas. When a single injector electronics fail, so does delivery of
>> any fuel to that cylinder..not what you really want in air. The German
>> manufacturers use a good Bosch continuous flow injection system, but
>> it too requires closed loop feedback mixture control. Nobody has done
>> much development work on what mixture programming would be optimal for
>> aircraft, partly because there isn't an optimum..if your mission is
>> economy/max range you can go max lean at the lowest power that keeps
>> the plane in the air. If you want 75% cruise, then there are other
>> compromises to make. No one setting fits all situations, so you would
>> have to have some form of override or mode select switch...another
>> point of failure.
>
>
>
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: | Fuselage options (preset flaps) |
Hi Jae,
Without the option the flap switch must be held until it reaches the
desired position while observing the flap indicator or looking out the
window at the flap. With the option there are three preset positions.
When the switch is activated, it extends the flaps to the next setting
and stops. However, only one touch is needed to raise the flaps. You can
read more about it on Van's site at:
www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1165249109-2-327&browse=a
irframe&product=fps
Vern (#324 Fuselage and having fun:)
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jae Chang
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 8:38 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage options (preset flaps)
<jc-matronics_rv10@jline.com>
I will be putting in my order for the fuselage kit this week. I noticed
there is
only the 1 option for pre-set flaps. Am I wrong for assuming most will
opt for
the option?
Also, I scanned the Section 40 PDF on tim's site, but I didn't see any
mention
of the option. Just curious exactly what the difference is with this
option.
Just seems like a strange thing to be optional.
Jae
#40533
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: Eggenfellner |
Kelly, I suggest you become familiar with the MegaSquirt family of ECU's.
Tim, I suggest you look at the actual history of those "old" engines.
They Lycs and Conti's really don't do so well at all. Just ask any A&P,
or owner.
IMO, Egg is Way too expensive.
David M.
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Well, I doubt you will find a car that does better than th 0.42 bsfc
> that most any Lycoming can achieve. Their computers are first and
> foremost to eliminate emissions, with a side benefit of reducing fuel
> consumption and increasing reliability. But they require unleaded fuel
> and oxygen sensors to achieve the fuel control, not feasible if you
> are ever going to run 100LL. If you took away their closed loop
> feedback fuel computers, they would lose 90% of the benefit of the
> computer..see what happens when you have a failed O2 sensor for fuel
> economy. O2 sensors can't live with any lead. Their systems are not
> optimized for economy, because doing so would maximize NOx emissions,
> generating more smog. They have to run a little rich to have some CO
> in the exhaust to work with the reducing portion of the catalyst,
> creating N2 and O2 from NOx, before the exhaust goes into the
> oxidizing chamber to turn CO to CO2 and HC to H2O and CO2. Their
> electronic injectors(not all cars have them) are sensitive to varnish
> and gum and dirt, which is why you see a lot of service places pushing
> injection cleaning, and a detergency specification had to be added for
> mogas. When a single injector electronics fail, so does delivery of
> any fuel to that cylinder..not what you really want in air. The German
> manufacturers use a good Bosch continuous flow injection system, but
> it too requires closed loop feedback mixture control. Nobody has done
> much development work on what mixture programming would be optimal for
> aircraft, partly because there isn't an optimum..if your mission is
> economy/max range you can go max lean at the lowest power that keeps
> the plane in the air. If you want 75% cruise, then there are other
> compromises to make. No one setting fits all situations, so you would
> have to have some form of override or mode select switch...another
> point of failure. You just need to understand how different a
> mission daily commute on gridlocked freeways is from tooling around in
> the air at more than double the ground speed limit. Once you realize
> that most autos cruise at 15-20% power for speeds below 70mph, in
> mostly a varying load situation, vs aircraft running 75% power 95% of
> the time, and the rest either climbing at 100%, OR descending at very
> low power.
>
> On 12/4/06, linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
>> > me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
>> > then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
>> > who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
>> > with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
>> > track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed
>> > out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with
>> > the same reliability). So if you're TRULY and honesty looking
>> > for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will
>> > literally be years or a decade or more before there will be
>> > enough track record on the others to show. In fact, if it takes
>> > LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the
>> > conclusion will not be positive. It's an older design, but
>> > one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes
>> > that simply drop them from the sky without warning.
>>
>> Well, there is the Lycosaur SB covering excessive walve guide wear
>> ....... which leads to broken valves and engine failure. No warning of
>> impending failure other than doing the SB. I hate SBs! It's Lycomings
>> (and others) way of saying ..... "you might have a serious problem if"
>> (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) ....... and shifting the liability to
>> the owners instead of fessing up. Let's be honest here ..... aircraft
>> engines haven't changed in many decades ..... because of the Feds
>> rules/regs while car engines have improved reliability over the years.
>> FADEC is the most recent 'improvement' in our aircraft engine ......
>> and car engines paved the way for that ...... Car engines have
>> electronic fuel injection with automatic leaning, better BSFC .... well,
>> the list goes on and on. Thank God that the FAA will let us
>> experimental airplane builders use the latest technology (electronic
>> ignition with variable advance for one) so we CAN look at alternatives
>> to the certified power plants.
>>
>> No matter what logic a builder uses to come to HIS conclusion ...... I
>> doubt that any rational thought can be considered wrong. I'll most
>> likely have a certified type of engine in my bird when it takes to the
>> sky ....... mostly because I won't take the time and effort to engineer
>> all the stuff required to hang some other kind of power plant on it.
>> Other than that biggie, I can't see any reason not to be creative.
>> Linn
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1 are
>> > secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever
>> > kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or whatever.
>> >
>> > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> > do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuselage options (preset flaps) |
There is also the FPS Plus from Aircraft Extras. The advantage of this
one is that it also changes your trim setting to match the flaps. They
also sell a trim speed changer to reduce the trim speed, and make it
less sensitive, at higher airspeeds.
http://www.aircraftextras.com/
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 10:26 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuselage options (preset flaps)
Hi Jae,
Without the option the flap switch must be held until it reaches the
desired position while observing the flap indicator or looking out the
window at the flap. With the option there are three preset positions.
When the switch is activated, it extends the flaps to the next setting
and stops. However, only one touch is needed to raise the flaps. You can
read more about it on Van's site at:
www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1165249109-2-327&browse=a
irframe&product=fps
Vern (#324 Fuselage and having fun:)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jae Chang
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 8:38 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage options (preset flaps)
<jc-matronics_rv10@jline.com>
I will be putting in my order for the fuselage kit this week. I noticed
there is only the 1 option for pre-set flaps. Am I wrong for assuming
most will opt for the option?
Also, I scanned the Section 40 PDF on tim's site, but I didn't see any
mention of the option. Just curious exactly what the difference is with
this option.
Just seems like a strange thing to be optional.
Jae
#40533
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: Fuselage options (preset flaps) |
It's like the detents on a Cessna 150 or 172.
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:15 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuselage options (preset flaps)
> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> There is also the FPS Plus from Aircraft Extras. The advantage of this
> one is that it also changes your trim setting to match the flaps. They
> also sell a trim speed changer to reduce the trim speed, and make it
> less sensitive, at higher airspeeds.
>
> http://www.aircraftextras.com/
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 10:26 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuselage options (preset flaps)
>
>
> Hi Jae,
>
> Without the option the flap switch must be held until it reaches the
> desired position while observing the flap indicator or looking out the
> window at the flap. With the option there are three preset positions.
> When the switch is activated, it extends the flaps to the next setting
> and stops. However, only one touch is needed to raise the flaps. You can
> read more about it on Van's site at:
> www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1165249109-2-327&browse=a
> irframe&product=fps
>
> Vern (#324 Fuselage and having fun:)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jae Chang
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 8:38 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Fuselage options (preset flaps)
>
> <jc-matronics_rv10@jline.com>
>
> I will be putting in my order for the fuselage kit this week. I noticed
> there is only the 1 option for pre-set flaps. Am I wrong for assuming
> most will opt for the option?
>
> Also, I scanned the Section 40 PDF on tim's site, but I didn't see any
> mention of the option. Just curious exactly what the difference is with
> this option.
> Just seems like a strange thing to be optional.
>
> Jae
> #40533
>
>
>
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 |
|
Is there a reason that you are staying away from an audio panel like the
GMA-340 or the PMA6000, 7000, 8000? I think most of these offer stereo, and
they should all offer audio inputs. For the Garmin, you have crew and
passenger inputs and then you could have a switch that switched from your
MP3 or Satellite Radio source.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 12:43 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Intercoms
Next question,
I was looking at intercom units and would like to put in the wiring to the
headphone jacks and wanted to know if anyone has experience with any of the
three units. All I would like to have, not too complicated to us and
install and one that functions well and one that I can hook up to say an
Ipod and or satallite radio(Stereo function)
AVCOMM DX-AC6PA INTERCOM
PM3000 PANEL MOUNT STEREO INTERCOM
Sigtronics SPA-4S Stereo Intercom
Any body ever used any of these brands?
John G
--
11:50 AM
--
11:50 AM
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Yup, them O-2 sensors don't take a liken to lead ..... but that'll go
away. You could always use the EGT as a data input instead of the O-2
sensor to get around the lead problem, and with each cylinder being
monitored you can have selective injection VS the lost-charge method we
now use. The possibilities are great. Someone with far more time than
I have could whip up a computer controlled lycosaur with just a few
minor changes to the injection system (the injectors probably won't just
screw in) and have a really fine powerplant. Redundant computer will be
like redundant ignition (which is becoming more popular in A/C) .......
and you can buy replacement PROMs for just about any auto computer to
fit the mission ...... and if it's not available off-the-shelf it's a
small task to roll your own.
Maybe at some time down the road I'll have the time and interest to
explore the concept, but at this stage of my life, supplying stuff to
the experimental community isn't part of my game plan. I want to build
and fly, and the quickest way seems to be the old fashioned way.
Linn
do not archive
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Well, I doubt you will find a car that does better than th 0.42 bsfc
> that most any Lycoming can achieve. Their computers are first and
> foremost to eliminate emissions, with a side benefit of reducing fuel
> consumption and increasing reliability. But they require unleaded fuel
> and oxygen sensors to achieve the fuel control, not feasible if you
> are ever going to run 100LL. If you took away their closed loop
> feedback fuel computers, they would lose 90% of the benefit of the
> computer..see what happens when you have a failed O2 sensor for fuel
> economy. O2 sensors can't live with any lead. Their systems are not
> optimized for economy, because doing so would maximize NOx emissions,
> generating more smog. They have to run a little rich to have some CO
> in the exhaust to work with the reducing portion of the catalyst,
> creating N2 and O2 from NOx, before the exhaust goes into the
> oxidizing chamber to turn CO to CO2 and HC to H2O and CO2. Their
> electronic injectors(not all cars have them) are sensitive to varnish
> and gum and dirt, which is why you see a lot of service places pushing
> injection cleaning, and a detergency specification had to be added for
> mogas. When a single injector electronics fail, so does delivery of
> any fuel to that cylinder..not what you really want in air. The German
> manufacturers use a good Bosch continuous flow injection system, but
> it too requires closed loop feedback mixture control. Nobody has done
> much development work on what mixture programming would be optimal for
> aircraft, partly because there isn't an optimum..if your mission is
> economy/max range you can go max lean at the lowest power that keeps
> the plane in the air. If you want 75% cruise, then there are other
> compromises to make. No one setting fits all situations, so you would
> have to have some form of override or mode select switch...another
> point of failure. You just need to understand how different a
> mission daily commute on gridlocked freeways is from tooling around in
> the air at more than double the ground speed limit. Once you realize
> that most autos cruise at 15-20% power for speeds below 70mph, in
> mostly a varying load situation, vs aircraft running 75% power 95% of
> the time, and the rest either climbing at 100%, OR descending at very
> low power.
>
> On 12/4/06, linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
>> > me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
>> > then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
>> > who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
>> > with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
>> > track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed
>> > out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with
>> > the same reliability). So if you're TRULY and honesty looking
>> > for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will
>> > literally be years or a decade or more before there will be
>> > enough track record on the others to show. In fact, if it takes
>> > LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the
>> > conclusion will not be positive. It's an older design, but
>> > one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes
>> > that simply drop them from the sky without warning.
>>
>> Well, there is the Lycosaur SB covering excessive walve guide wear
>> ....... which leads to broken valves and engine failure. No warning of
>> impending failure other than doing the SB. I hate SBs! It's Lycomings
>> (and others) way of saying ..... "you might have a serious problem if"
>> (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) ....... and shifting the liability to
>> the owners instead of fessing up. Let's be honest here ..... aircraft
>> engines haven't changed in many decades ..... because of the Feds
>> rules/regs while car engines have improved reliability over the years.
>> FADEC is the most recent 'improvement' in our aircraft engine ......
>> and car engines paved the way for that ...... Car engines have
>> electronic fuel injection with automatic leaning, better BSFC .... well,
>> the list goes on and on. Thank God that the FAA will let us
>> experimental airplane builders use the latest technology (electronic
>> ignition with variable advance for one) so we CAN look at alternatives
>> to the certified power plants.
>>
>> No matter what logic a builder uses to come to HIS conclusion ...... I
>> doubt that any rational thought can be considered wrong. I'll most
>> likely have a certified type of engine in my bird when it takes to the
>> sky ....... mostly because I won't take the time and effort to engineer
>> all the stuff required to hang some other kind of power plant on it.
>> Other than that biggie, I can't see any reason not to be creative.
>> Linn
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1 are
>> > secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever
>> > kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or whatever.
>> >
>> > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> > do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Kelly
Exactly what you are discussing has started to be experimented with on
the Eggenfellner package. They have a wide band O2 sensor that they are
using to change fuel pressure settings to get the best performance to
fuel burn. You are correct that it can vary widely with very little
performance gain, but it is in the works, giving the pilot the ability
to control closed loop versus open loop on the stock ECM. But Jan has
now contracted to get a custom built ECM for the package that will take
advantage of the fuel mappings that are being tested. So the best power
to fuel burn will be able to be set and modified as needed. Much like
GAMI, but without the need to change injectors, instead the timing
pulses on the EFI will be modified.
Robert Paisley can talk more about this, as he is the one doing the
testing and development on it.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Well, I doubt you will find a car that does better than th 0.42 bsfc
that most any Lycoming can achieve. Their computers are first and
foremost to eliminate emissions, with a side benefit of reducing fuel
consumption and increasing reliability. But they require unleaded fuel
and oxygen sensors to achieve the fuel control, not feasible if you
are ever going to run 100LL. If you took away their closed loop
feedback fuel computers, they would lose 90% of the benefit of the
computer..see what happens when you have a failed O2 sensor for fuel
economy. O2 sensors can't live with any lead. Their systems are not
optimized for economy, because doing so would maximize NOx emissions,
generating more smog. They have to run a little rich to have some CO
in the exhaust to work with the reducing portion of the catalyst,
creating N2 and O2 from NOx, before the exhaust goes into the
oxidizing chamber to turn CO to CO2 and HC to H2O and CO2. Their
electronic injectors(not all cars have them) are sensitive to varnish
and gum and dirt, which is why you see a lot of service places pushing
injection cleaning, and a detergency specification had to be added for
mogas. When a single injector electronics fail, so does delivery of
any fuel to that cylinder..not what you really want in air. The German
manufacturers use a good Bosch continuous flow injection system, but
it too requires closed loop feedback mixture control. Nobody has done
much development work on what mixture programming would be optimal for
aircraft, partly because there isn't an optimum..if your mission is
economy/max range you can go max lean at the lowest power that keeps
the plane in the air. If you want 75% cruise, then there are other
compromises to make. No one setting fits all situations, so you would
have to have some form of override or mode select switch...another
point of failure. You just need to understand how different a
mission daily commute on gridlocked freeways is from tooling around in
the air at more than double the ground speed limit. Once you realize
that most autos cruise at 15-20% power for speeds below 70mph, in
mostly a varying load situation, vs aircraft running 75% power 95% of
the time, and the rest either climbing at 100%, OR descending at very
low power.
On 12/4/06, linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>
> >
> > You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
> > me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
> > then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
> > who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
> > with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
> > track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed
> > out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with
> > the same reliability). So if you're TRULY and honesty looking
> > for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will
> > literally be years or a decade or more before there will be
> > enough track record on the others to show. In fact, if it takes
> > LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the
> > conclusion will not be positive. It's an older design, but
> > one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes
> > that simply drop them from the sky without warning.
>
> Well, there is the Lycosaur SB covering excessive walve guide wear
> ....... which leads to broken valves and engine failure. No warning
of
> impending failure other than doing the SB. I hate SBs! It's
Lycomings
> (and others) way of saying ..... "you might have a serious problem if"
> (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) ....... and shifting the liability
to
> the owners instead of fessing up. Let's be honest here ..... aircraft
> engines haven't changed in many decades ..... because of the Feds
> rules/regs while car engines have improved reliability over the years.
> FADEC is the most recent 'improvement' in our aircraft engine ......
> and car engines paved the way for that ...... Car engines have
> electronic fuel injection with automatic leaning, better BSFC ....
well,
> the list goes on and on. Thank God that the FAA will let us
> experimental airplane builders use the latest technology (electronic
> ignition with variable advance for one) so we CAN look at alternatives
> to the certified power plants.
>
> No matter what logic a builder uses to come to HIS conclusion ...... I
> doubt that any rational thought can be considered wrong. I'll most
> likely have a certified type of engine in my bird when it takes to the
> sky ....... mostly because I won't take the time and effort to
engineer
> all the stuff required to hang some other kind of power plant on it.
> Other than that biggie, I can't see any reason not to be creative.
> Linn
>
>
> >
> >
> > But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1
are
> > secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever
> > kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or
whatever.
> >
> > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> > do not archive
>
>
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 |
|
I would recommend the pm3000
Noel Simmons
Blue Sky Aviation, Inc.
www.blueskyaviation.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 10:43 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Intercoms
Next question,
I was looking at intercom units and would like to put in the wiring to the
headphone jacks and wanted to know if anyone has experience with any of the
three units. All I would like to have, not too complicated to us and
install and one that functions well and one that I can hook up to say an
Ipod and or satallite radio(Stereo function)
AVCOMM DX-AC6PA INTERCOM
PM3000 PANEL MOUNT STEREO INTERCOM
Sigtronics SPA-4S Stereo Intercom
Any body ever used any of these brands?
John G
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 |
|
Just to stir the discussion and make it boil over.....Do not spend the
extra money to get Sirius built in the portables are cheaper, and XM is
better anyway. Most of us will be using a portable Garmin and can get
the XM included in the plan, and use the aux Jack to get the music over
to the intercom.
Hey, we have not had a primer war in awhile, so lets start an XM versus
Siruis discussion...
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Easy Choice on the intercom. the PMA8000SR. There's so much cool
stuff in those intercoms, it's one of the nicest things to have
in the plane.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John Gonzalez wrote:
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
>
> No Beaming in Star Wars...you mean Star Trek! Hyperdrives and jumps to
> lightspeed are Star Wars.
>
> How come no one ever mentions Yamaha outboard motors, Water cooled and
> up to 300HP and run at full power for several hours to get out to the
> real fishing grounds. My 90Hp Yamaha never had a problem and I cleaned
> the carburators myself on several occassions...Magna Sin, that's
Mexico
> gas. That engine took a lick'en and it did it in saltwater. It didn't
> cost $40,000.00 either.
>
> Time to move on. How about Intercoms any recommendations. Want easy
> installation, stereo sound and plays satallite radio or from an Ipod.
> Can it be acheived. Brands????????
>
> John G.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>> From: Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net>
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>> Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:22:26 -0500
>>
>>
>> It is postings like the following that really spark my interest
(posted
>> today on the SubaruAircraft Yahoo list):
>>
>> -----
>> Yesterday we had a break in the weather (snow & high winds) so we had
a
>> group gaggle fly off the island for lunch. We had 3 Super Cubs, 1
Cessna
>> 120 and my E-Sube powered GlaStar. Flying formation with this gaggle
I
>> had to reduce power to 3000 eng. rpm/1650 prop. OAT was 25 deg. so
they
>> were all dressed in insulated coveralls, heavy coats, stocking caps
etc.
>> trying to keep from freezing. Meanwhile I was very comfortable in a
>> light shirt basking in the heat from my hot coolant multi fan speed
>> cockpit heater/defroster. The best part was, they were burning 8 gph
of
>> 100 LL while I was only burning 2.3 GPH of auto fuel !!!
>>
>> We all had a great lunch and departed for the island. One of the
>> pilot/passengers in one of the Super Cubs rode back with me. He said
>> going from the Super Cub/Lyc. to the GlaStar/Subaru was like being
>> beamed 100 years into the future. He must be a Star Wars fan :>))
>>
>> Charlie Walker
>> 762 TROUBLE FREE hrs.
>> -----
>>
>> -Dj
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
No you are right, getting in a crew car and driving down to the auto
parts store, that in major cities are open 24x7, buying the parts and
fixing the engine yourself would be just too easy right? Most FBO's do
not stock the parts you are likely to need in the event of a major
failure, but most auto parts stores have just about every part you need
to fix a Subaru engine.
Just stirring the pot some more...
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. Thanks Kelly for your detailed data but
since I
wanted to built an airplane I can service & keep running all by myself I
think I'll stick with the Old boys. Ya mix air & fuel in the proper
amounts
(I control both), run it thru a KISS engine without all the GobbildyGoop
"extra" items required in car engines & go flying. Somehow I just can't
see
myself landing at some small airport, have a problem and calling the
local
auto dealership & pay for a "housecall" to the airport. As I said
before.
YOU make YOUR choice, spend YOUR money & take YOUR chances. That's what
make
experiential aircraft building so great. KABONG Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
> -->If you took away their closed loop
> feedback fuel computers, they would lose 90% of the benefit of the
> computer..see what happens when you have a failed O2 sensor for fuel
> economy. O2 sensors can't live with any lead. Their systems are not
> optimized for economy, because doing so would maximize NOx emissions,
> generating more smog. They have to run a little rich to have some CO
> in the exhaust to work with the reducing portion of the catalyst,
> creating N2 and O2 from NOx, before the exhaust goes into the
> oxidizing chamber to turn CO to CO2 and HC to H2O and CO2. Their
> electronic injectors(not all cars have them) are sensitive to varnish
> and gum and dirt, which is why you see a lot of service places pushing
> injection cleaning, and a detergency specification had to be added for
> mogas. When a single injector electronics fail, so does delivery of
> any fuel to that cylinder..not what you really want in air. The German
> manufacturers use a good Bosch continuous flow injection system, but
> it too requires closed loop feedback mixture control. Nobody has done
> much development work on what mixture programming would be optimal for
> aircraft, partly because there isn't an optimum..if your mission is
> economy/max range you can go max lean at the lowest power that keeps
> the plane in the air. If you want 75% cruise, then there are other
> compromises to make. No one setting fits all situations, so you would
> have to have some form of override or mode select switch...another
> point of failure.
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 |
|
Then there is the GMA-347 from Garmin that has the digital voice recorder and
many extra unswitched inputs for stuff like EFIS AOA alarms and Ebgine monitor
alarms.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
N519RV (40250) Flying
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:14 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Intercoms
Is there a reason that you are staying away from an audio panel like the
GMA-340 or the PMA6000, 7000, 8000? I think most of these offer stereo, and
they should all offer audio inputs. For the Garmin, you have crew and
passenger inputs and then you could have a switch that switched from your
MP3 or Satellite Radio source.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 12:43 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Intercoms
Next question,
I was looking at intercom units and would like to put in the wiring to the
headphone jacks and wanted to know if anyone has experience with any of the
three units. All I would like to have, not too complicated to us and
install and one that functions well and one that I can hook up to say an
Ipod and or satallite radio(Stereo function)
AVCOMM DX-AC6PA INTERCOM
PM3000 PANEL MOUNT STEREO INTERCOM
Sigtronics SPA-4S Stereo Intercom
Any body ever used any of these brands?
John G
--
11:50 AM
--
11:50 AM
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 |
|
We have not had a primer war in a while? I think this engine thing is
bigger than primer ever was. I think we should start calling the primer
discussion an Engine War.
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: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 10:22 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Just to stir the discussion and make it boil over.....Do not spend the
extra money to get Sirius built in the portables are cheaper, and XM is
better anyway. Most of us will be using a portable Garmin and can get
the XM included in the plan, and use the aux Jack to get the music over
to the intercom.
Hey, we have not had a primer war in awhile, so lets start an XM versus
Siruis discussion...
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Easy Choice on the intercom. the PMA8000SR. There's so much cool
stuff in those intercoms, it's one of the nicest things to have
in the plane.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John Gonzalez wrote:
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
>
> No Beaming in Star Wars...you mean Star Trek! Hyperdrives and jumps to
> lightspeed are Star Wars.
>
> How come no one ever mentions Yamaha outboard motors, Water cooled and
> up to 300HP and run at full power for several hours to get out to the
> real fishing grounds. My 90Hp Yamaha never had a problem and I cleaned
> the carburators myself on several occassions...Magna Sin, that's
Mexico
> gas. That engine took a lick'en and it did it in saltwater. It didn't
> cost $40,000.00 either.
>
> Time to move on. How about Intercoms any recommendations. Want easy
> installation, stereo sound and plays satallite radio or from an Ipod.
> Can it be acheived. Brands????????
>
> John G.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>> From: Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net>
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>> Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:22:26 -0500
>>
>>
>> It is postings like the following that really spark my interest
(posted
>> today on the SubaruAircraft Yahoo list):
>>
>> -----
>> Yesterday we had a break in the weather (snow & high winds) so we had
a
>> group gaggle fly off the island for lunch. We had 3 Super Cubs, 1
Cessna
>> 120 and my E-Sube powered GlaStar. Flying formation with this gaggle
I
>> had to reduce power to 3000 eng. rpm/1650 prop. OAT was 25 deg. so
they
>> were all dressed in insulated coveralls, heavy coats, stocking caps
etc.
>> trying to keep from freezing. Meanwhile I was very comfortable in a
>> light shirt basking in the heat from my hot coolant multi fan speed
>> cockpit heater/defroster. The best part was, they were burning 8 gph
of
>> 100 LL while I was only burning 2.3 GPH of auto fuel !!!
>>
>> We all had a great lunch and departed for the island. One of the
>> pilot/passengers in one of the Super Cubs rode back with me. He said
>> going from the Super Cub/Lyc. to the GlaStar/Subaru was like being
>> beamed 100 years into the future. He must be a Star Wars fan :>))
>>
>> Charlie Walker
>> 762 TROUBLE FREE hrs.
>> -----
>>
>> -Dj
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
11:50 AM
--
11:50 AM
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
>> me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
>> then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
>> who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
>> with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
>> track record.
The interesting thing is that one of the reasons I am considering a
Subaru is that safety is one of my major concerns. I keep reading on
various mailing lists about the "reliability" of Lycoming and related
engines, but nearly every time I stop by my local FBO maintenance shop
there is one there having some sort of top end work done on it. I've
personally had to have cylinders replaced on a Continental O200, and
valves worked on a Lyc O320, and I don't have all that much flying
time. Somewhere there is a disconnect between the perceived
"reliability" of Lycomings and what I have seen personally in the Real
World. Granted, my data set is small, but I cannot imagine that my shop
is the only one in the world that is getting all the "unreliable"
Lycoming engines to work on.
We don't yet have tons of air time on the Subaru packages, but what
time we do have tends towards showing that the Subaru is a very reliable
airplane package. There are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions?) of
hours of Subaru engines in automobiles, SUVs, and racing applications,
and to me at least (my opinion) the core engine is not in question in
the slightest - it is tough, reliable, and extremely well designed.
The only question I have left is whether the PSRU (gear reduction
unit) will be as reliable as the engine, but so far from the hours
already flown, the Egg PSRU seems to be a very good and reliable
performer. Time will tell if this continues to hold true.
-Dj
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 |
|
Daniel,
You are like the last pillar standing and I am at the foundation helping to
hold you up. Interestingly enough, the others don't know it, but you are
doing it for everyone(Let us remember that). I hope it works out for you, I
am right behind you.
Call me cheap, but the most expensive vehicle I own, aside from my glider is
my F-250 four door diesel purchased in 2001 at $36K. That comes with an
engine, body, upholstery, the works. More importantly I drove it home the
day I bought it.
These aircraft engines, way over $40K brand new, without the special
ignition, (I think)without alternator, without Gami. This is nuts IMO! I
just can't get over it. I really like spending money on fine items like
handcrafted all molded RC gliders, things that are high quality, fine
tolerances, last forever type stuff, so I don't think it is called cheap,
just some kind of hurdle I can't seem to clear.
I think Eggenfellners are too expensive also, but when you look at the
amount of work he has done putting everything together, he deserves to make
a living too.
John G.
Absolutely no DIG to anyone, my own issue, verbalized.
Do NOt Archive
>From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:25:07 -0500
>
>
>No you are right, getting in a crew car and driving down to the auto
>parts store, that in major cities are open 24x7, buying the parts and
>fixing the engine yourself would be just too easy right? Most FBO's do
>not stock the parts you are likely to need in the event of a major
>failure, but most auto parts stores have just about every part you need
>to fix a Subaru engine.
>Just stirring the pot some more...
>Dan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 3:17 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
>KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. Thanks Kelly for your detailed data but
>since I
>wanted to built an airplane I can service & keep running all by myself I
>
>think I'll stick with the Old boys. Ya mix air & fuel in the proper
>amounts
>(I control both), run it thru a KISS engine without all the GobbildyGoop
>
>"extra" items required in car engines & go flying. Somehow I just can't
>see
>myself landing at some small airport, have a problem and calling the
>local
>auto dealership & pay for a "housecall" to the airport. As I said
>before.
>YOU make YOUR choice, spend YOUR money & take YOUR chances. That's what
>make
>experiential aircraft building so great. KABONG Do Not Archive
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 9:31 PM
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
> > -->If you took away their closed loop
> > feedback fuel computers, they would lose 90% of the benefit of the
> > computer..see what happens when you have a failed O2 sensor for fuel
> > economy. O2 sensors can't live with any lead. Their systems are not
> > optimized for economy, because doing so would maximize NOx emissions,
> > generating more smog. They have to run a little rich to have some CO
> > in the exhaust to work with the reducing portion of the catalyst,
> > creating N2 and O2 from NOx, before the exhaust goes into the
> > oxidizing chamber to turn CO to CO2 and HC to H2O and CO2. Their
> > electronic injectors(not all cars have them) are sensitive to varnish
> > and gum and dirt, which is why you see a lot of service places pushing
> > injection cleaning, and a detergency specification had to be added for
> > mogas. When a single injector electronics fail, so does delivery of
> > any fuel to that cylinder..not what you really want in air. The German
> > manufacturers use a good Bosch continuous flow injection system, but
> > it too requires closed loop feedback mixture control. Nobody has done
> > much development work on what mixture programming would be optimal for
> > aircraft, partly because there isn't an optimum..if your mission is
> > economy/max range you can go max lean at the lowest power that keeps
> > the plane in the air. If you want 75% cruise, then there are other
> > compromises to make. No one setting fits all situations, so you would
> > have to have some form of override or mode select switch...another
> > point of failure.
>
>
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 |
|
Noel,
Are you Blue Sky Avaitoin in Camarillo?
How difficult is it to install?
I need my transponder in the glider certified this spring. Can you guys
still do it.
John G.
>From: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel@blueskyaviation.net>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Intercoms
>Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 08:21:55 -0700
>
><noel@blueskyaviation.net>
>
>I would recommend the pm3000
>
>Noel Simmons
>Blue Sky Aviation, Inc.
>www.blueskyaviation.net
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
>Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 10:43 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Intercoms
>
>
>Next question,
>
>I was looking at intercom units and would like to put in the wiring to the
>headphone jacks and wanted to know if anyone has experience with any of the
>three units. All I would like to have, not too complicated to us and
>install and one that functions well and one that I can hook up to say an
>Ipod and or satallite radio(Stereo function)
>
>AVCOMM DX-AC6PA INTERCOM
>
>
>PM3000 PANEL MOUNT STEREO INTERCOM
>
>
>Sigtronics SPA-4S Stereo Intercom
>
>Any body ever used any of these brands?
>
>John G
>
>
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 |
|
Yeah, since I've got a Lycoming O-540 sitting in a crate in my basement,
if an email comes with the title "RV10 List: Eggenfellner", I just hit
"Delete"
Jack Phillips
#40610
Elevators
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 10:48 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
We have not had a primer war in a while? I think this engine thing is
bigger than primer ever was. I think we should start calling the primer
discussion an Engine War.
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: | Re: Eggenfellner |
I have to say that this was one of the most civil and grown up "wars"
that I've ever seen on the lists. I commend those of you who provided
your opinions without resorting to the typical flame tactics. It was
a very informative discussion.
Regards,
Mike Schipper
RV-10 #40576 - Wings
http://www.rvten.com
On Dec 5, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
> We have not had a primer war in a while? I think this engine thing is
> bigger than primer ever was. I think we should start calling the
> primer
> discussion an Engine War.
>
> Do not archive.
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Believe I am staying away form the conventional stacked deck, putting in
smaller stuff like in the glider, Becker. VFR only. No cash, need to build
a small cabin after this in Colorado, hence the need for the plane. Call me
rebel!
Not planning on selling this bird and want most of my systems the same for
ease of use so that my aging memory does not remind me each time I switch
between planes. Currently 40 years old.
JOhn G,
Do Not Archive
>From: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Intercoms
>Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:14:10 -0500
>
>
>Is there a reason that you are staying away from an audio panel like the
>GMA-340 or the PMA6000, 7000, 8000? I think most of these offer stereo,
>and
>they should all offer audio inputs. For the Garmin, you have crew and
>passenger inputs and then you could have a switch that switched from your
>MP3 or Satellite Radio source.
>
>Do not archive.
>
>Jesse Saint
>I-TEC, Inc.
>jesse@itecusa.org
>www.itecusa.org
>W: 352-465-4545
>C: 352-427-0285
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 12:43 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Intercoms
>
>
>Next question,
>
>I was looking at intercom units and would like to put in the wiring to the
>headphone jacks and wanted to know if anyone has experience with any of the
>three units. All I would like to have, not too complicated to us and
>install and one that functions well and one that I can hook up to say an
>Ipod and or satallite radio(Stereo function)
>
>AVCOMM DX-AC6PA INTERCOM
>
>
>PM3000 PANEL MOUNT STEREO INTERCOM
>
>
>Sigtronics SPA-4S Stereo Intercom
>
>Any body ever used any of these brands?
>
>John G
>
>
>--
>11:50 AM
>
>
>--
>11:50 AM
>
>
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 |
|
DJ:
The main reason that most engines need top end work done is from getting
the engine too hot and glazing the cylinders, not really from a design
or manufacturing defect. Another common problem is corrosion of the
cam/tappets due to lack of flight time. The best way to keep your
engine in tip-top shape and eliminate those problems is to fly the heck
out of it, avoid long run-ups on the ground and change the oil.
Rhonda
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
>> me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
>> then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
>> who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
>> with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
>> track record.
The interesting thing is that one of the reasons I am considering a
Subaru is that safety is one of my major concerns. I keep reading on
various mailing lists about the "reliability" of Lycoming and related
engines, but nearly every time I stop by my local FBO maintenance shop
there is one there having some sort of top end work done on it. I've
personally had to have cylinders replaced on a Continental O200, and
valves worked on a Lyc O320, and I don't have all that much flying
time. Somewhere there is a disconnect between the perceived
"reliability" of Lycomings and what I have seen personally in the Real
World. Granted, my data set is small, but I cannot imagine that my shop
is the only one in the world that is getting all the "unreliable"
Lycoming engines to work on.
We don't yet have tons of air time on the Subaru packages, but what
time we do have tends towards showing that the Subaru is a very reliable
airplane package. There are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions?) of
hours of Subaru engines in automobiles, SUVs, and racing applications,
and to me at least (my opinion) the core engine is not in question in
the slightest - it is tough, reliable, and extremely well designed.
The only question I have left is whether the PSRU (gear reduction
unit) will be as reliable as the engine, but so far from the hours
already flown, the Egg PSRU seems to be a very good and reliable
performer. Time will tell if this continues to hold true.
-Dj
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 |
|
Large temperature differential I am afraid, we are in Lewistown Montana. We
just specialize in RV's, I tend to stay away from certified, don't like the
way they are constructed :>0, gliders are a different story love them
certified or not.
If you are talking about the pm300 it is quite easy. Simply use shielded
wire from your jacks to the panel, the wiring diagrams are downloadable from
PS engineering's www.
There are a few people on the list that are trying to keep you from making a
mistake. If you are using multiple coms and multiple Navs you should go
with an audio panel.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:01 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Intercoms
Noel,
Are you Blue Sky Avaitoin in Camarillo?
How difficult is it to install?
I need my transponder in the glider certified this spring. Can you guys
still do it.
John G.
>From: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel@blueskyaviation.net>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Intercoms
>Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 08:21:55 -0700
>
><noel@blueskyaviation.net>
>
>I would recommend the pm3000
>
>Noel Simmons
>Blue Sky Aviation, Inc.
>www.blueskyaviation.net
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
>Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 10:43 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Intercoms
>
>
>Next question,
>
>I was looking at intercom units and would like to put in the wiring to the
>headphone jacks and wanted to know if anyone has experience with any of the
>three units. All I would like to have, not too complicated to us and
>install and one that functions well and one that I can hook up to say an
>Ipod and or satallite radio(Stereo function)
>
>AVCOMM DX-AC6PA INTERCOM
>
>
>PM3000 PANEL MOUNT STEREO INTERCOM
>
>
>Sigtronics SPA-4S Stereo Intercom
>
>Any body ever used any of these brands?
>
>John G
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Aw c'mon .... you can't be Sirius!!! Oh, that is what you said!!! :-D
Linn
do not archive
Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
>
>Just to stir the discussion and make it boil over.....Do not spend the
>extra money to get Sirius built in the portables are cheaper, and XM is
>better anyway. Most of us will be using a portable Garmin and can get
>the XM included in the plan, and use the aux Jack to get the music over
>to the intercom.
>
>Hey, we have not had a primer war in awhile, so lets start an XM versus
>Siruis discussion...
>Dan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 1:04 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
>Easy Choice on the intercom. the PMA8000SR. There's so much cool
>stuff in those intercoms, it's one of the nicest things to have
>in the plane.
>
>Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>do not archive
>
>
>John Gonzalez wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
><indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
>
>
>>No Beaming in Star Wars...you mean Star Trek! Hyperdrives and jumps to
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>lightspeed are Star Wars.
>>
>>How come no one ever mentions Yamaha outboard motors, Water cooled and
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>up to 300HP and run at full power for several hours to get out to the
>>real fishing grounds. My 90Hp Yamaha never had a problem and I cleaned
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>the carburators myself on several occassions...Magna Sin, that's
>>
>>
>Mexico
>
>
>>gas. That engine took a lick'en and it did it in saltwater. It didn't
>>cost $40,000.00 either.
>>
>>Time to move on. How about Intercoms any recommendations. Want easy
>>installation, stereo sound and plays satallite radio or from an Ipod.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Can it be acheived. Brands????????
>>
>>John G.
>>
>>Do Not Archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net>
>>>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>>>Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:22:26 -0500
>>>
>>>
>>>It is postings like the following that really spark my interest
>>>
>>>
>(posted
>
>
>>>today on the SubaruAircraft Yahoo list):
>>>
>>>-----
>>>Yesterday we had a break in the weather (snow & high winds) so we had
>>>
>>>
>a
>
>
>>>group gaggle fly off the island for lunch. We had 3 Super Cubs, 1
>>>
>>>
>Cessna
>
>
>>>120 and my E-Sube powered GlaStar. Flying formation with this gaggle
>>>
>>>
>I
>
>
>>>had to reduce power to 3000 eng. rpm/1650 prop. OAT was 25 deg. so
>>>
>>>
>they
>
>
>>>were all dressed in insulated coveralls, heavy coats, stocking caps
>>>
>>>
>etc.
>
>
>>>trying to keep from freezing. Meanwhile I was very comfortable in a
>>>light shirt basking in the heat from my hot coolant multi fan speed
>>>cockpit heater/defroster. The best part was, they were burning 8 gph
>>>
>>>
>of
>
>
>>>100 LL while I was only burning 2.3 GPH of auto fuel !!!
>>>
>>>We all had a great lunch and departed for the island. One of the
>>>pilot/passengers in one of the Super Cubs rode back with me. He said
>>>going from the Super Cub/Lyc. to the GlaStar/Subaru was like being
>>>beamed 100 years into the future. He must be a Star Wars fan :>))
>>>
>>>Charlie Walker
>>>762 TROUBLE FREE hrs.
>>>-----
>>>
>>>-Dj
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Rhonda Bewley wrote:
>
> DJ:
>
> The main reason that most engines need top end work done is from getting
> the engine too hot and glazing the cylinders, not really from a design
> or manufacturing defect. Another common problem is corrosion of the
> cam/tappets due to lack of flight time. The best way to keep your
> engine in tip-top shape and eliminate those problems is to fly the heck
> out of it, avoid long run-ups on the ground and change the oil.
>
> Rhonda
>
Hi Rhonda,
No real argument as to why the problems happen, I just find it
interesting (and somewhat amusing) that one of the strong arguments that
people use for choosing a Lycoming is the claimed "reliability", but yet
there are all these problems that seem to be occuring which indicates to
a neophyte like myself that they really aren't all that reliable after
all.
If the Subaru engine is treated the same way as the Lyc, I'm not
convinced that we will see any more problems with it than the Lyc has,
but that is just my own opinion with no actual data to back it up. The
more brave souls that gather the Subaru data for us, the better to make
my decision down the road... :-)
-Dj
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Rhonda Bewley wrote:
>
>DJ:
>
>The main reason that most engines need top end work done is from getting
>the engine too hot and glazing the cylinders, not really from a design
>or manufacturing defect.
>
I don't think that's entirely true. I think most of the wear is due to
rusting of the cylinders because the A/C wasn't being flown often enough
nor hard enough.
> Another common problem is corrosion of the cam/tappets due to lack of flight
time.
>
This is true! Directly related to the comment above!
> The best way to keep your
>engine in tip-top shape and eliminate those problems is to fly the heck
>out of it, avoid long run-ups on the ground and change the oil.
>
Amen! This is the best advice I've seen on this thread!!!
Linn
do not archive
>
>
>Rhonda
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
>Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:49 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
>Tim Olson wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
>>>me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
>>>then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
>>>who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
>>>with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
>>>track record.
>>>
>>>
>
> The interesting thing is that one of the reasons I am considering a
>Subaru is that safety is one of my major concerns. I keep reading on
>various mailing lists about the "reliability" of Lycoming and related
>engines, but nearly every time I stop by my local FBO maintenance shop
>there is one there having some sort of top end work done on it. I've
>personally had to have cylinders replaced on a Continental O200, and
>valves worked on a Lyc O320, and I don't have all that much flying
>time. Somewhere there is a disconnect between the perceived
>"reliability" of Lycomings and what I have seen personally in the Real
>World. Granted, my data set is small, but I cannot imagine that my shop
>is the only one in the world that is getting all the "unreliable"
>Lycoming engines to work on.
>
> We don't yet have tons of air time on the Subaru packages, but what
>time we do have tends towards showing that the Subaru is a very reliable
>airplane package. There are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions?) of
>hours of Subaru engines in automobiles, SUVs, and racing applications,
>and to me at least (my opinion) the core engine is not in question in
>the slightest - it is tough, reliable, and extremely well designed.
>
> The only question I have left is whether the PSRU (gear reduction
>unit) will be as reliable as the engine, but so far from the hours
>already flown, the Egg PSRU seems to be a very good and reliable
>performer. Time will tell if this continues to hold true.
>
>-Dj
>
>
>
>
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: Eggenfellner |
It is called "evolution" of the enlightened individual.
Some day our goverments might learn to do the same. We need to send the old
guys who make policy to fight the wars. "I looked deep into his eyes, but
them he hit me"
Sorry, I couldn't resist. It stil lis a very complex world. No denying that.
Do Not Archive
>From: Michael Schipper <mike@learningplanet.com>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:04:19 -0600
>
>I have to say that this was one of the most civil and grown up "wars" that
>I've ever seen on the lists. I commend those of you who provided your
>opinions without resorting to the typical flame tactics. It was a very
>informative discussion.
>
>Regards,
>Mike Schipper
>RV-10 #40576 - Wings
>http://www.rvten.com
>
>
>On Dec 5, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>
>>We have not had a primer war in a while? I think this engine thing is
>>bigger than primer ever was. I think we should start calling the primer
>>discussion an Engine War.
>>
>>Do not archive.
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Would it not be safe to say that if you drive by a Subaru dealership (or any
repair shop, for that matter) that they won't have most of their bays filled
with cars getting some kind of work done on them. In my experience they
seem to be fairly full. Does that mean that car's aren't reliable? I think
that means that engines eventually need to be fixed. Some new ones have
problems, more old ones have problems. Check out an early 80's
just-about-anything and it probably has been in the shop a number of times.
The engine is N256H has been to right around 4,000 hours before major TWICE
before we got it. New cylinders, new cam and a few new gears and we now
have 300 trouble-free hours on it. As Rhonda pointed out, the first two
times they ran the snot out of it on a flight school Aztec. Now we are sort
of running the snot out of it with 300hrs in less than a year and a half.
This is all not a dog on the Subie, of course, just seeing a few holes in
the logic. Because shops have work to do doesn't mean that they only work
on junk. Just the fact that 50-year-old engines are still flying means that
they are NOT junk IMHO (ie. How many Yugo's do you see driving around
still?).
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 Dj Merrill
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
>> me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
>> then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
>> who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
>> with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
>> track record.
The interesting thing is that one of the reasons I am considering a
Subaru is that safety is one of my major concerns. I keep reading on
various mailing lists about the "reliability" of Lycoming and related
engines, but nearly every time I stop by my local FBO maintenance shop
there is one there having some sort of top end work done on it. I've
personally had to have cylinders replaced on a Continental O200, and
valves worked on a Lyc O320, and I don't have all that much flying
time. Somewhere there is a disconnect between the perceived
"reliability" of Lycomings and what I have seen personally in the Real
World. Granted, my data set is small, but I cannot imagine that my shop
is the only one in the world that is getting all the "unreliable"
Lycoming engines to work on.
We don't yet have tons of air time on the Subaru packages, but what
time we do have tends towards showing that the Subaru is a very reliable
airplane package. There are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions?) of
hours of Subaru engines in automobiles, SUVs, and racing applications,
and to me at least (my opinion) the core engine is not in question in
the slightest - it is tough, reliable, and extremely well designed.
The only question I have left is whether the PSRU (gear reduction
unit) will be as reliable as the engine, but so far from the hours
already flown, the Egg PSRU seems to be a very good and reliable
performer. Time will tell if this continues to hold true.
-Dj
--
11:50 AM
--
11:50 AM
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 |
|
Linn,
Tracy (Rotary Aviation) is now making a EFI controller for the Lyc. If
it is like the ones for the rotary it can be manually leaned and is a
dual unit.
Bobby
40116
(Rotary with custom everything)
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
--> <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
Yup, them O-2 sensors don't take a liken to lead ..... but that'll go
away. You could always use the EGT as a data input instead of the O-2
sensor to get around the lead problem, and with each cylinder being
monitored you can have selective injection VS the lost-charge method we
now use. The possibilities are great. Someone with far more time than
I have could whip up a computer controlled lycosaur with just a few
minor changes to the injection system (the injectors probably won't just
screw in) and have a really fine powerplant. Redundant computer will be
like redundant ignition (which is becoming more popular in A/C) .......
and you can buy replacement PROMs for just about any auto computer to
fit the mission ...... and if it's not available off-the-shelf it's a
small task to roll your own.
Maybe at some time down the road I'll have the time and interest to
explore the concept, but at this stage of my life, supplying stuff to
the experimental community isn't part of my game plan. I want to build
and fly, and the quickest way seems to be the old fashioned way.
Linn
do not archive
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Well, I doubt you will find a car that does better than th 0.42 bsfc
> that most any Lycoming can achieve. Their computers are first and
> foremost to eliminate emissions, with a side benefit of reducing fuel
> consumption and increasing reliability. But they require unleaded fuel
> and oxygen sensors to achieve the fuel control, not feasible if you
> are ever going to run 100LL. If you took away their closed loop
> feedback fuel computers, they would lose 90% of the benefit of the
> computer..see what happens when you have a failed O2 sensor for fuel
> economy. O2 sensors can't live with any lead. Their systems are not
> optimized for economy, because doing so would maximize NOx emissions,
> generating more smog. They have to run a little rich to have some CO
> in the exhaust to work with the reducing portion of the catalyst,
> creating N2 and O2 from NOx, before the exhaust goes into the
> oxidizing chamber to turn CO to CO2 and HC to H2O and CO2. Their
> electronic injectors(not all cars have them) are sensitive to varnish
> and gum and dirt, which is why you see a lot of service places pushing
> injection cleaning, and a detergency specification had to be added for
> mogas. When a single injector electronics fail, so does delivery of
> any fuel to that cylinder..not what you really want in air. The German
> manufacturers use a good Bosch continuous flow injection system, but
> it too requires closed loop feedback mixture control. Nobody has done
> much development work on what mixture programming would be optimal for
> aircraft, partly because there isn't an optimum..if your mission is
> economy/max range you can go max lean at the lowest power that keeps
> the plane in the air. If you want 75% cruise, then there are other
> compromises to make. No one setting fits all situations, so you would
> have to have some form of override or mode select switch...another
> point of failure. You just need to understand how different a
> mission daily commute on gridlocked freeways is from tooling around in
> the air at more than double the ground speed limit. Once you realize
> that most autos cruise at 15-20% power for speeds below 70mph, in
> mostly a varying load situation, vs aircraft running 75% power 95% of
> the time, and the rest either climbing at 100%, OR descending at very
> low power.
>
> On 12/4/06, linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
>> > me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
>> > then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy who
>> > wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly, with
>> > well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable track
>> > record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed out are
>> > correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with the same
>> > reliability). So if you're TRULY and honesty looking for long term
>> > safety, there is only one choice....as it will literally be years
>> > or a decade or more before there will be enough track record on the
>> > others to show. In fact, if it takes LESS time to come to a
>> > conclusion, then that will mean the
>> > conclusion will not be positive. It's an older design, but
>> > one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes
>> > that simply drop them from the sky without warning.
>>
>> Well, there is the Lycosaur SB covering excessive walve guide wear
>> ....... which leads to broken valves and engine failure. No warning
>> of impending failure other than doing the SB. I hate SBs! It's
>> Lycomings (and others) way of saying ..... "you might have a serious
problem if"
>> (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) ....... and shifting the liability
>> to the owners instead of fessing up. Let's be honest here .....
>> aircraft engines haven't changed in many decades ..... because of the
>> Feds rules/regs while car engines have improved reliability over the
years.
>> FADEC is the most recent 'improvement' in our aircraft engine ......
>> and car engines paved the way for that ...... Car engines have
>> electronic fuel injection with automatic leaning, better BSFC ....
>> well, the list goes on and on. Thank God that the FAA will let us
>> experimental airplane builders use the latest technology (electronic
>> ignition with variable advance for one) so we CAN look at
>> alternatives to the certified power plants.
>>
>> No matter what logic a builder uses to come to HIS conclusion ......
>> I doubt that any rational thought can be considered wrong. I'll most
>> likely have a certified type of engine in my bird when it takes to
>> the sky ....... mostly because I won't take the time and effort to
>> engineer all the stuff required to hang some other kind of power
plant on it.
>> Other than that biggie, I can't see any reason not to be creative.
>> Linn
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1
>> > are secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank
>> > whatever kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments,
or whatever.
>> >
>> > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> > do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
I started flying with the PS1000 intercom and no audio panel to simply "get flying"
and use a portable for my backup. Apparently there is noise running around
the cabin that emits from the windows and the air from the vents rushing around
the mic. An intercom that has fewer squelch circuits than headsets gangs multiple
headset mics into one squelch circuit.
For example, the PS1000 has two squelch circuits. When the co-pilot breaks squelch
it opens the mics at both passenger seats. Thus the mic nearest the noise
(of the set of 3) will break squelch. It means that the squelch must be turned
up high and normal talking becomes stuttered. Once squelch is broken there
is a noticable hiss in the background heard as people are talking. The PS3000
has three squelch circuits which gang both passengers into one circuit.
My next step will be the Garmin 347. It has a squelch circuit for each headset
and filtering to reduce the background hiss once squelch is broken. It also
has lots of input choices. The several unswitch inputs can be used to route the
devices that wish to talk to us. Such as, VOR ID and weather, TIS traffic, and
engine monitor.
Bill DeRouchey
billderou@yahoo.com
Flying with 58 hours
"Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr@sprint.com> wrote:
Then there is the GMA-347 from Garmin that has the digital voice recorder and many
extra unswitched inputs for stuff like EFIS AOA alarms and Ebgine monitor
alarms.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
N519RV (40250) Flying
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:14 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Intercoms
Is there a reason that you are staying away from an audio panel like the
GMA-340 or the PMA6000, 7000, 8000? I think most of these offer stereo, and
they should all offer audio inputs. For the Garmin, you have crew and
passenger inputs and then you could have a switch that switched from your
MP3 or Satellite Radio source.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 12:43 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Intercoms
Next question,
I was looking at intercom units and would like to put in the wiring to the
headphone jacks and wanted to know if anyone has experience with any of the
three units. All I would like to have, not too complicated to us and
install and one that functions well and one that I can hook up to say an
Ipod and or satallite radio(Stereo function)
AVCOMM DX-AC6PA INTERCOM
PM3000 PANEL MOUNT STEREO INTERCOM
Sigtronics SPA-4S Stereo Intercom
Any body ever used any of these brands?
John G
--
11:50 AM
--
11:50 AM
---------------------------------
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 |
|
XM SUCKS! :-) Couldn't help myself, just need to disagree with Dan.
Seriously though, I do agree with Dan on the portables. You will get
much more use out of a portable and can move it between airplane, car,
house. If you get a 496 you don't have a choice in service (XM only)
but it's one less thing to clutter the cockpit.
As far as providers goes, I have had both for years. XM for when it
first came out for a couple years and Sirius for about the last two.
The programming is very similar and either would probably be fine for
75% of the people out there. I primarily listen to a lot of
"alternative" type of music and found XM to be very confused when it
comes to programming around that format so I decided to try Sirius. I
find that there is more programming on Sirius that I like but their play
lists are too short so the popular songs end up in very heavy rotation.
Anyone looking at getting satellite radio should try to borrow a friends
for a week and see which they like better. If you have DISH satellite
TV, you have access to almost all the Sirius channels so you can check
it out there. Won't make a difference in a couple years because one
will probably by the other anyway.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:22 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
--> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Just to stir the discussion and make it boil over.....Do not spend the
extra money to get Sirius built in the portables are cheaper, and XM is
better anyway. Most of us will be using a portable Garmin and can get
the XM included in the plan, and use the aux Jack to get the music over
to the intercom.
Hey, we have not had a primer war in awhile, so lets start an XM versus
Siruis discussion...
Dan
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 |
|
Keep in mind that there are vastly more Lycomings out there that are
fairly old compared to new or reman'd so it's not unexpected to have
experiences like this. Stop by your local Subie dealer and I bet you
find Subie engines being worked on without a single Lycoming in site.
:-)
I honestly don't expect you would find a huge spread in reliability
statistics when you compare "new" Subie packages to "new" Lycoming
packages. As far as the crank issues everyone loves to point to
recently, this is not a design flaw. 10's of thousands of cranks are
out there without these problems. Some bean counter probably pushed
someone to save some $$ and they made a bad decision to change the
metallurgical recipe of the cranks. Bad decision not related to the
overall design. I personally think it sucks and Lycoming should stop
passing the costs to their customers, but we have no leverage without
alternative engine options whether its from Egg, Eci, Mistral, or
whoever. But let's get one thing straight, the automotive industry is
far from exempt when it comes to making bad decisions to save $$. As a
matter of fact, I think they lead the way in that dept also.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses me.
>> If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern, then
>> the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy who wants to
>> experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly, with well built
>> planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable track record.
The interesting thing is that one of the reasons I am considering a
Subaru is that safety is one of my major concerns. I keep reading on
various mailing lists about the "reliability" of Lycoming and related
engines, but nearly every time I stop by my local FBO maintenance shop
there is one there having some sort of top end work done on it. I've
personally had to have cylinders replaced on a Continental O200, and
valves worked on a Lyc O320, and I don't have all that much flying time.
Somewhere there is a disconnect between the perceived "reliability" of
Lycomings and what I have seen personally in the Real World. Granted,
my data set is small, but I cannot imagine that my shop is the only one
in the world that is getting all the "unreliable"
Lycoming engines to work on.
We don't yet have tons of air time on the Subaru packages, but what
time we do have tends towards showing that the Subaru is a very reliable
airplane package. There are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions?) of
hours of Subaru engines in automobiles, SUVs, and racing applications,
and to me at least (my opinion) the core engine is not in question in
the slightest - it is tough, reliable, and extremely well designed.
The only question I have left is whether the PSRU (gear reduction
unit) will be as reliable as the engine, but so far from the hours
already flown, the Egg PSRU seems to be a very good and reliable
performer. Time will tell if this continues to hold true.
-Dj
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: | Rhonda's Comments |
So as not to get thrown out with the EGG trash / Delete Key, your
comments were great and on target. Another pointer is to have the
engine pre-warmed in colder climates to close those tolerances and get
that oil flowing more quickly to exposed surfaces. With a little
boroscope training, it is shocking how fast tappet faces, cam lobes and
cylinder wall begin to oxidize from high humidity levels. Here in
Oregon it is not uncommon to run 65%-85% humidity for six months. After
just seven days the sheeting action of the oil film is nearly gone and
that relative humidity just loves internal engines that are not
regularly run to "Full Operating Temperature" for the prescribed time to
cook out the humidity from the oil. Acids that are formed don't help
either.
Temperature/adequate idle RPM and leaning the mixture help can help as
well in the care and feeding of the dinosaurs.
John Cox
#40600
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: | Radio and intercom |
My wife and I just bought a 1969 Citabria 7KCAB as a trainer while the 10 is being
built. It doesn't look the best but runs great. However, when we bought
it, we knew we wanted to upgrade a few things. We're planning on eventually making
the panel IFR capable as a very simple trainer, not really with "hard" IFR
flying in mind - we live in the San Francisco Bay Area so the most IFR we'd
really be looking at is getting through the fog in the morning to get out to
the practice area.
With that in mind - it currently has a MicroAir M760 radio and a portable intercom,
with the rear seat push to talk inoperable. I'd like to replace the radio
with a Nav/Com and get a panel mounted intercom. What do people recommend?
Happy to look at functioning used equipment. Idea is this is more of a trainer,
with more basic and inexpensive equipment, so not looking to install the SL30
or PM8000 that we'd look to install in the 10.
Thanks!
Jon Reining
40514 (along with my dad)
buildus interruptus - tailcone, QB wings and fuselage waiting
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=79333#79333
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Be forewarned, this is in a HUMOROUS tone....
I guess by that rationality, the Subies have an extrordinary safety
record in flight in the RV-10 installations. I've never once
heard of someone having an off-airport landing in their Subie
powered RV-10 before.
"all these problems" just seems so strange to hear. When you count
how many engines are out there, "all these" seems to be similar
to saying "tons of U.S. Airline passenger deaths in the past 2 years"...
just another sensationalist term. As a percentage of engines
out there, it's actually amazing that if you eliminate pilot error,
esp. due to fuel mismanagement, that you're left with an incredibly
small pool of accidents to analyze.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> Hi Rhonda,
> No real argument as to why the problems happen, I just find it
> interesting (and somewhat amusing) that one of the strong arguments that
> people use for choosing a Lycoming is the claimed "reliability", but yet
> there are all these problems that seem to be occuring which indicates to
> a neophyte like myself that they really aren't all that reliable after
> all.
>
> If the Subaru engine is treated the same way as the Lyc, I'm not
> convinced that we will see any more problems with it than the Lyc has,
> but that is just my own opinion with no actual data to back it up. The
> more brave souls that gather the Subaru data for us, the better to make
> my decision down the road... :-)
>
> -Dj
>
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: | Re: Eggenfellner |
I can see the headlines now....
RV-10 Matronics list members charged today in an incident where they severely beat
to death an already dead horse...... ;)
I'll bet this topic would not have gone on so long if you had to type "Eggenfellner"
each time you replyed!!
How bout them Broncos!!!!
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
PS-Barrett's XIO-540 due to arrive around the first of March
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: Eggenfellner |
>Yeah, since I've got a Lycoming O-540 sitting in a crate
>in my basement, if an email comes with the title "RV10
> List: Eggenfellner", I just hit "Delete"
I'm in the same boat and tempted to do the same but I've found this discussion
interesting and not a total waste of bandwidth. While I've made my choice, I
see the need and rationale for others going the Eggenfellner route. Because if
we are to condemn them for following that path then it should follow that those
that fly certified ships should also condemn us for the "experimentals" that
we fly.
That's the nice thing about this endeavour, you can experiment and innovate as
much or as little as you are comfortable with. Where would we be if the Wrights
had listened to the conventional wisdom of the day when the most esteemed physicist
espoused that "heavier than air flight was an impossibility?"
I too wish a more modern, less expensive alternative power plant was available.
I just paid the equivalent of what I paid for a brand new 2002 MB ML-320 for
an TMX IO-540 with one electronic ignition. Without discussions such as this
we are doomed to this obscene economic model and there will NEVER be a viable
alternative power-plant if we deter those who choose to explore the possibilities
in this area.
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
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: Eggenfellner |
Why would I have any interest in a do-it-yourself ECU? What I
described is how car manufacturer/EPA approved ECUs work. Building a
plane isn't enough? You want to design code to run the engine most
efficiently for all regimes? Do you have any idea the staff and
resources car companies put into ECU development? Do you think it
really is as easy as MegaSquirt ads claim? Designing one for racing is
a lot simpler..just maximize power output at desired rpm and you are
done. So far, only TCM has a certified FADEC, and quite frankly I
wouldn't want to fly with it. I can operate the engine more
efficiently with manual controls than it will in FADEC mode, because I
can go fast ROP, or go economy LOP and keep the temps where I want
them. If you don't use closed loop O2 feedback, your only other option
for mixture control is EGT, which has much greater lag in response
time, by comparison. Unless you will be certain of always being able
to get unleaded mogas at airports you land at, your O2 sensor will die
on the first load of 100LL. Why would you want electronic injectors
that can fail both electrically or by the usual dirt/varnish plugging?
GAMIs may or may not be needed depending on your luck with Lyc. QC. My
Lyc runs fine with stock injectors LOP. Others won't.
Spark control you can already get the equivalent of automotive in
either the experimental category or the Unison Lasar certified system.
So far the improvements don't appear to be worth the money.
The Lycs and Continentals are extremely reliable when operated
frequently, according to manual...since you asked for an A&P
opinion...I'm only A&P/IA. Or ask the major engine shops what kind of
failure rate they see, what their warranty rate is. If they had the
kind of record you allege, they would be spending huge amounts on
warranty claims and wouldn't stay in business long.
Oh, wait, Rhonda already gave her opinion, which I agree with
entirely. I've owned an aircraft for 31 years. I've done two
overhauls, zero cylinder work, zero top overhauls, in climate from
Alaska to Arizona. Monitor your temps, keep temps conservative and fly
frequently.
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 |
|
How many of those cars on the rack are up there for engine repair? Very
few these days, it is the bolt on accessories and the externals that
need work. Which is what I have been saying is the week point in all of
our discussions, it is the PSRU, or the cooling system, or the fuel
delivery system that has caused issues, not the engine itself.
Just additional comments.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Would it not be safe to say that if you drive by a Subaru dealership (or
any
repair shop, for that matter) that they won't have most of their bays
filled
with cars getting some kind of work done on them. In my experience they
seem to be fairly full. Does that mean that car's aren't reliable? I
think
that means that engines eventually need to be fixed. Some new ones have
problems, more old ones have problems. Check out an early 80's
just-about-anything and it probably has been in the shop a number of
times.
The engine is N256H has been to right around 4,000 hours before major
TWICE
before we got it. New cylinders, new cam and a few new gears and we now
have 300 trouble-free hours on it. As Rhonda pointed out, the first two
times they ran the snot out of it on a flight school Aztec. Now we are
sort
of running the snot out of it with 300hrs in less than a year and a
half.
This is all not a dog on the Subie, of course, just seeing a few holes
in
the logic. Because shops have work to do doesn't mean that they only
work
on junk. Just the fact that 50-year-old engines are still flying means
that
they are NOT junk IMHO (ie. How many Yugo's do you see driving around
still?).
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 Dj Merrill
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
>> me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
>> then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
>> who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
>> with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
>> track record.
The interesting thing is that one of the reasons I am considering a
Subaru is that safety is one of my major concerns. I keep reading on
various mailing lists about the "reliability" of Lycoming and related
engines, but nearly every time I stop by my local FBO maintenance shop
there is one there having some sort of top end work done on it. I've
personally had to have cylinders replaced on a Continental O200, and
valves worked on a Lyc O320, and I don't have all that much flying
time. Somewhere there is a disconnect between the perceived
"reliability" of Lycomings and what I have seen personally in the Real
World. Granted, my data set is small, but I cannot imagine that my shop
is the only one in the world that is getting all the "unreliable"
Lycoming engines to work on.
We don't yet have tons of air time on the Subaru packages, but what
time we do have tends towards showing that the Subaru is a very reliable
airplane package. There are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions?) of
hours of Subaru engines in automobiles, SUVs, and racing applications,
and to me at least (my opinion) the core engine is not in question in
the slightest - it is tough, reliable, and extremely well designed.
The only question I have left is whether the PSRU (gear reduction
unit) will be as reliable as the engine, but so far from the hours
already flown, the Egg PSRU seems to be a very good and reliable
performer. Time will tell if this continues to hold true.
-Dj
--
11:50 AM
--
11:50 AM
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 |
|
My friend has an Egg on his RV-9 and his latest oil analyzes of his engine and
PSRU came back with excessive wear on the PSRU. He had the second generation
PSRU from Jan and it is now being swapped out after 500 hours because one of
the bearings in it were making metal. He is now waiting to get the third generation
PSRU with the 2.02 gear ratio from Jan.
At the rate that Jan keeps changing his components, it is going to be very hard
for anyone to accumulate enough hours on a particular component to see if it
will stand the test of time.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
N519RV(40250) Former Jan customer, but never again.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
>> me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
>> then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
>> who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
>> with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
>> track record.
The interesting thing is that one of the reasons I am considering a
Subaru is that safety is one of my major concerns. I keep reading on
various mailing lists about the "reliability" of Lycoming and related
engines, but nearly every time I stop by my local FBO maintenance shop
there is one there having some sort of top end work done on it. I've
personally had to have cylinders replaced on a Continental O200, and
valves worked on a Lyc O320, and I don't have all that much flying
time. Somewhere there is a disconnect between the perceived
"reliability" of Lycomings and what I have seen personally in the Real
World. Granted, my data set is small, but I cannot imagine that my shop
is the only one in the world that is getting all the "unreliable"
Lycoming engines to work on.
We don't yet have tons of air time on the Subaru packages, but what
time we do have tends towards showing that the Subaru is a very reliable
airplane package. There are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions?) of
hours of Subaru engines in automobiles, SUVs, and racing applications,
and to me at least (my opinion) the core engine is not in question in
the slightest - it is tough, reliable, and extremely well designed.
The only question I have left is whether the PSRU (gear reduction
unit) will be as reliable as the engine, but so far from the hours
already flown, the Egg PSRU seems to be a very good and reliable
performer. Time will tell if this continues to hold true.
-Dj
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: | Insurance Underwriting |
Rick, Please add some clarity here... from your perspective. Does an
insurance underwriter make no rate change for choice of alternative
engine and non certificated prop choice rather than certificated engine
(IO-540D4A5) and certificated prop (Hartzell 2 blade) for the exact same
pilot and airframe hull coverage?
A post was made which implied coverage was available and could lead
someone to believe the costs are equal. Can you clarify?
I asked mine about horsepower and that wasn't a concern (Hot Rodding).
Lack of an Instrument ticket and low hours did factor into premium.
Retractable Gear and Tail Dragger too but we don't have to worry about
that either. I forgot to ask about Alt Engines, cause I got off on a
tangent of gyrocopters and he spun out of control with me as a future
customer. I could barely auto-rotate the dialog in time by telling him
I was only asking about a friend who had one (Uncovered). The Subie
discussion got me going.
Maybe someone has Sky Smiths number who believes he is the know all, be
all, end all for insurance rates.
John Cox
#40600
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> Unless you will be certain of always being able
> to get unleaded mogas at airports you land at, your O2 sensor will die
> on the first load of 100LL.
It is recommended to run Decalin TCP additive
(http://www.decalinchemicals.com/) when running 100LL to handle the lead
content in the Subaru, although they still recommend checking and
cleaning the O2 sensor at frequent intervals when using 100LL (20
hours). In my Lyc O320, I had lead buildup problems on the valves from
using 100LL (the engine was designed to run on the old 80 octane avgas),
but since using Decalin TCP I have had no further troubles with lead in
my Lyc. For me at least, I have to use TCP for using 100LL in my Lyc or
the Egg Subaru (if I get one) to help maintain a healthy engine.
Tim Olson wrote:
> "all these problems" just seems so strange to hear. When you count
> how many engines are out there, "all these" seems to be similar
> to saying "tons of U.S. Airline passenger deaths in the past 2 years"...
> just another sensationalist term. As a percentage of engines
> out there, it's actually amazing that if you eliminate pilot error,
> esp. due to fuel mismanagement, that you're left with an incredibly
> small pool of accidents to analyze.
I suppose you could attribute to "pilot error" some of the problems
that Lycs have if the pilot does not fly the airplane frequently, thus
causing the engine issues that in turn cause the top end work to be done
(noting the previous posts on the topic). Regardless of the reasons,
there still seems to be a lot of top end work that is necessary to
maintain a typical Lycoming to TBO in your average privately owned GA
aircraft, solely based on my own opinion and personal observations,
which may not represent reality as a whole.
Perhaps the term "reliable" is somewhat ambigious. To me, it means
being able to run to the advertised TBO without doing any major work to
the engine. Doing top end work part way through the TBO means the
engine did not make it all the way to TBO without the extra work, thus
reducing its "reliability" in my eyes.
What is boils down to from my personal, limited experience is that I
have not seen any evidence to show that a Lycoming is any MORE reliable
than a Subaru engine, so it puzzles me when people make claims that they
are. I'm just hoping to see some solid evidence from beyond my own
limited experience that will help me to make a well educated engine
decision. It is difficult to weed through all the opinions and my own
personal experiences and just look at facts, especially since this is a
highly contentious topic. This has been an excellent discussion, and I
appreciate the polite and constructive conversation that we have had
thus far about the topic.
-Dj
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: Eggenfellner |
Doerr, Ray R [NTK] wrote:
>
> My friend has an Egg on his RV-9 and his latest oil analyzes of his engine and
PSRU came back with excessive wear on the PSRU. He had the second generation
PSRU from Jan and it is now being swapped out after 500 hours because one of
the bearings in it were making metal. He is now waiting to get the third generation
PSRU with the 2.02 gear ratio from Jan.
> At the rate that Jan keeps changing his components, it is going to be very hard
for anyone to accumulate enough hours on a particular component to see if
it will stand the test of time.
>
Ray, this is excellent information, and I greatly appreciate you
sharing this. The PSRU is one of the potentially questionably parts of
the engine package in my eyes, and reports like yours help in the
decision making process. I'm hoping there is a lot more history on the
PSRU before I have to make an engine decision.
Did Jan give any potential reason as to why the bearings are making
metal? I wonder if there is an "overhaul" process that can be done on a
PSRU versus buying a whole new one. If the cost were reasonable, a 500
hour "top end" inspection and perhaps overhaul on the PSRU might be an
acceptable option, similar to what we do with magnetos.
-Dj
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: | How bout them Broncos!!!! |
How 'bout them Broncos!!!!
Hear that the OV-10 guys luv'em. 8*) Do Not Archive
> How bout them Broncos!!!!
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
>
> do not archive
>
> PS-Barrett's XIO-540 due to arrive around the first of March
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 |
|
I'm getting ready to run conduit through the baqggage area and acquired the same
stuff Tim Olsen is using. It looks great, lots of room, and should do the job.
The concern I have is how large this is on the O.D. and will there be a significant
weakening of the bulkheads from enlarging the holes to size?
I believe the O.D. is 1.125 inches. I plan to run one on each side. Tim and others,
after you installed this conduit, did you have alot of extra capacity left
over? Could it be scaled down a little and still be sufficient?
Thanks,
Sean Blair
#40225
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 |
|
Ray, it is indeed the PSRUs which bring Alt Engine Owners to their
knees. It is rarely the actual engine. Atkins has had multiple losses
in-flight and it has been accessories, hoses and his quality of
workmanship. If he only wore a white coat with pocket pen protector you
would begin to see why conservatives defend dinosaurs so passionately.
Still no one is addressing noise and that is best because of there
current hearing loss.
On the Lancair side, there were literally scores who lost millions in
the pursuit of Hot Rodding and Alternates to the Dinosaurs. In the end,
nearly all have capitulated to the developmental costs of PSRUs and the
use of Ts in front of their engine designation as a compromise. No
recent aircraft manufacturer has been more focused on safety than
Cirrus. They avoid PSRUs like a modern plague. Pratt and Whitney had
the hundreds of millions and put it where it was needed to make
Turbo-Props so reliable. The turbine engine is nearly bullet-proof and
running a 1.3 millions dollar PSRU up front with FADEC control helps.
For those of us on more worldly financial means, this has been an
enjoyable exercise in lively discussion and esoteric pursuit.
John Cox
#40600
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: | Insurance Underwriting |
To answer your question on this and the RV7 airframe, there was not a
premium difference for either engine, it was based on TT and my lack of
IFR ticket. When I got initial quotes on the 10, it was quoted the same
way, that is why I am getting my IFR done ASAP. There is a significant
price drop, and once I get more time in type there will be another price
break.
But if the plane falls out of the air, like all are predicting, then all
bets are off!
Honestly, I do not feel this is any more experimental, then flying hard
IFR behind an experimental panel. you just have to determine what you
are willing to do, test it, test it some more, and move on.
Dan
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 2:07 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Insurance Underwriting
Rick, Please add some clarity here... from your perspective. Does an
insurance underwriter make no rate change for choice of alternative
engine and non certificated prop choice rather than certificated engine
(IO-540D4A5) and certificated prop (Hartzell 2 blade) for the exact same
pilot and airframe hull coverage?
A post was made which implied coverage was available and could lead
someone to believe the costs are equal. Can you clarify?
I asked mine about horsepower and that wasn't a concern (Hot Rodding).
Lack of an Instrument ticket and low hours did factor into premium.
Retractable Gear and Tail Dragger too but we don't have to worry about
that either. I forgot to ask about Alt Engines, cause I got off on a
tangent of gyrocopters and he spun out of control with me as a future
customer. I could barely auto-rotate the dialog in time by telling him
I was only asking about a friend who had one (Uncovered). The Subie
discussion got me going.
Maybe someone has Sky Smiths number who believes he is the know all, be
all, end all for insurance rates.
John Cox
#40600
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 |
|
When the bottom leading edges of the flap skins are riveted to the
flange of the spar, you have to force your hand down between the
skins with a bucking bar to buck those rivets. The bucking bar I
favor is a left over hunk of metal from a printing press. All of the
sides are polished and the edges are polished and rounded. If the
base of the bar is resting on the web while bucking the flange it
will put a slight scar or scuff on the web from the kick back. I'll
usually put a piece of thick tape down on the web or on the bar
itself to keep this from happening. If the access doesn't allow it,
or I flat out forget, I'll hit the spots with a scotch bright pad,
smooth them out, give them a quick shot of zinc chromate and move on.
In the case of my flaps, I did none of the above. I got caught up in
the "moment" (you all know how exciting riveting can get) and put a
neat row of scars across the inner web of my flap spar and buttoned
it up with pop rivets before it even occurred to me.
Can those of you out there with real life experience speak to the
nature of stress cracks... how shy of perfect something can be before
it's a potential problem. In my case, these are more "dent like"
than "scratch like." I'd like to get a sense of what I'm dealing
with here. Should I move on and forget about it? Move on and
inspect it every so many hours once flying? Rebuild the flaps?
I'm hoping, too, that this might give us a breather from the
Eggenfellner thread.
Jeff Carpenter
Thinking I'm Finished with the Flaps
40304
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 |
|
| Subject: | Insurance Underwriting |
My company Regal-Wissmiller had adds for lack of IFR, adds for Retract,
adds for taildragger, adds for under 400 hours TT and adds for alternate
engine. Major adds for Lancair make and model specific.
No add for Van's with nose wheel, no adds for horsepower above 210, 250
or 300. To which I was pleasantly surprised while holding passion as a
Hot Rodder. Glass EFIS is triggering a whole new discussion as they
look at rates and the number of low time Cirrus pilots who pull the
chute and destroy the plane rather than trying to fly it.
Proficiency Training is not Transition Training and I sense that I hear
the sounds of that train approaching in the distance. Anyone want to
bet the percentage of RV-10 builder's with less than 1,000 hours and
Private Pilot Certificate (Sans IFR) in the gene pool. We have quite a
colorful fruit basket when trying to compare insurance impact.
Others may want to know the company to pursue and this leads back to the
query several weeks ago for tracking.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:45 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Insurance Underwriting
To answer your question on this and the RV7 airframe, there was not a
premium difference for either engine, it was based on TT and my lack of
IFR ticket. When I got initial quotes on the 10, it was quoted the same
way, that is why I am getting my IFR done ASAP. There is a significant
price drop, and once I get more time in type there will be another price
break.
But if the plane falls out of the air, like all are predicting, then all
bets are off!
Honestly, I do not feel this is any more experimental, then flying hard
IFR behind an experimental panel. you just have to determine what you
are willing to do, test it, test it some more, and move on.
Dan
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 2:07 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Insurance Underwriting
Rick, Please add some clarity here... from your perspective. Does an
insurance underwriter make no rate change for choice of alternative
engine and non certificated prop choice rather than certificated engine
(IO-540D4A5) and certificated prop (Hartzell 2 blade) for the exact same
pilot and airframe hull coverage?
A post was made which implied coverage was available and could lead
someone to believe the costs are equal. Can you clarify?
I asked mine about horsepower and that wasn't a concern (Hot Rodding).
Lack of an Instrument ticket and low hours did factor into premium.
Retractable Gear and Tail Dragger too but we don't have to worry about
that either. I forgot to ask about Alt Engines, cause I got off on a
tangent of gyrocopters and he spun out of control with me as a future
customer. I could barely auto-rotate the dialog in time by telling him
I was only asking about a friend who had one (Uncovered). The Subie
discussion got me going.
Maybe someone has Sky Smiths number who believes he is the know all, be
all, end all for insurance rates.
John Cox
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: Eggenfellner |
Man, this is the next best thing to perpetual motion. It just keeps going
and going and going>>>>
I wish I didn't delete all the Eggenfellner emails today..I would have
counted them for a record to see if the next war went as long.
>From: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:14:00 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
>
>
>I can see the headlines now....
>
>RV-10 Matronics list members charged today in an incident where they
>severely beat to death an already dead horse...... ;)
>
>I'll bet this topic would not have gone on so long if you had to type
>"Eggenfellner" each time you replyed!!
>
>How bout them Broncos!!!!
>
>Rick S.
>40185
>
>do not archive
>
>PS-Barrett's XIO-540 due to arrive around the first of March
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Radio and intercom |
While I like Citabrias in general and KCABs in particular, I don't think
it would be very useful as an instrument trainer. It's pretty important
during instrument training for the instructor to be able to see the
instruments well enough to fly the airplane with them. With the
instructor in the back seat, and you and the instruments in the front,
it will be very difficult for the instructor to watch for traffic while
checking to see if you're still on the localizer, and also watch the
altimeter to see if you are below the MDA.
Jack Phillips
40610
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon Reining
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 12:21 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Radio and intercom
--> <jonathan.w.reining@wellsfargo.com>
My wife and I just bought a 1969 Citabria 7KCAB as a trainer while the
10 is being built. It doesn't look the best but runs great. However,
when we bought it, we knew we wanted to upgrade a few things. We're
planning on eventually making the panel IFR capable as a very simple
trainer, not really with "hard" IFR flying in mind - we live in the San
Francisco Bay Area so the most IFR we'd really be looking at is getting
through the fog in the morning to get out to the practice area.
With that in mind - it currently has a MicroAir M760 radio and a
portable intercom, with the rear seat push to talk inoperable. I'd like
to replace the radio with a Nav/Com and get a panel mounted intercom.
What do people recommend? Happy to look at functioning used equipment.
Idea is this is more of a trainer, with more basic and inexpensive
equipment, so not looking to install the SL30 or PM8000 that we'd look
to install in the 10.
Thanks!
Jon Reining
40514 (along with my dad)
buildus interruptus - tailcone, QB wings and fuselage waiting 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: Eggenfellner |
Thanks Bobby! I haven't been keeping up with what Tracy's into!
Linn
do not archive
Bobby J. Hughes wrote:
>
>Linn,
>
>Tracy (Rotary Aviation) is now making a EFI controller for the Lyc. If
>it is like the ones for the rotary it can be manually leaned and is a
>dual unit.
>
>Bobby
>40116
>(Rotary with custom everything)
>
>
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 |
|
If you have ever seen a striped circa 60's plane getting ready for body
work, the amount of dents would scare you. In my opinion small dents are
not as big an issue, if they are not that deep, IE smiley's. If they are
hidden inside a structure and are not visible, and do not mess with the
integrity of the joint, move on. If they are visible, fill them, paint
them and forget about it. If they mess with the structure of the joint
that is a different issue, and a call to Vans is in order, but they will
likely tell you them same thing.
Dan
Hiding smileys on the wings for paint, and no I will never tell where
they are.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Carpenter
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 3:23 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Confession
When the bottom leading edges of the flap skins are riveted to the
flange of the spar, you have to force your hand down between the
skins with a bucking bar to buck those rivets. The bucking bar I
favor is a left over hunk of metal from a printing press. All of the
sides are polished and the edges are polished and rounded. If the
base of the bar is resting on the web while bucking the flange it
will put a slight scar or scuff on the web from the kick back. I'll
usually put a piece of thick tape down on the web or on the bar
itself to keep this from happening. If the access doesn't allow it,
or I flat out forget, I'll hit the spots with a scotch bright pad,
smooth them out, give them a quick shot of zinc chromate and move on.
In the case of my flaps, I did none of the above. I got caught up in
the "moment" (you all know how exciting riveting can get) and put a
neat row of scars across the inner web of my flap spar and buttoned
it up with pop rivets before it even occurred to me.
Can those of you out there with real life experience speak to the
nature of stress cracks... how shy of perfect something can be before
it's a potential problem. In my case, these are more "dent like"
than "scratch like." I'd like to get a sense of what I'm dealing
with here. Should I move on and forget about it? Move on and
inspect it every so many hours once flying? Rebuild the flaps?
I'm hoping, too, that this might give us a breather from the
Eggenfellner thread.
Jeff Carpenter
Thinking I'm Finished with the Flaps
40304
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: Eggenfellner |
Just three points. TCP is good for reducing lead deposits on
plugs/valves. It won't do anything for O2 sensor, and no, you can't
clean lead from the sensor, as it binds with the sensor material.
Other deposits to some degree can be burned off, and modern O2 sensors
are heated internally to reduce deposit build up, but still lead will
kill them, and you are still looking at $50-100 every time you have to
replace one, plus labor. I'd call the Decalin recommendation to clean
an O2 sensor every 20 hours as fruitless and a lot of work that isn't
likely to save it.
Mogas DOES soften PRC, and if you use it, your fuel tanks will
eventually leak and will have to be resealed.
Cylinder top end work....mostly a function of how hot you run the
cylinders. Keep them below 400CHT, change your oil regularly and fly
regularly, and you won't need top end work. I have over 600 hours
behind 200hp Lyc. with no top end work since I've owned it.
Also keep in mind, with the RV-10 you are talking 200mph aircraft.
1000 hours of flying is 200,000 miles. 2000 hours is 400,000 miles.
Please advise how many auto engines go that far with no top end work.
Not that long ago Japanese engines routinely needed head gasket
replacement/head resurfacing. Not to mention virtually all of the
overhead cam engines need timing belt replacement at 60-90,000 miles.
On 12/5/06, Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net> wrote:
> It is recommended to run Decalin TCP additive
> (http://www.decalinchemicals.com/) when running 100LL to handle the lead
> content in the Subaru, although they still recommend checking and
> cleaning the O2 sensor at frequent intervals when using 100LL (20
> hours). In my Lyc O320, I had lead buildup problems on the valves from
> using 100LL (the engine was designed to run on the old 80 octane avgas),
> but since using Decalin TCP I have had no further troubles with lead in
> my Lyc. For me at least, I have to use TCP for using 100LL in my Lyc or
> the Egg Subaru (if I get one) to help maintain a healthy engine.
> I suppose you could attribute to "pilot error" some of the problems
> that Lycs have if the pilot does not fly the airplane frequently, thus
> causing the engine issues that in turn cause the top end work to be done
> (noting the previous posts on the topic). Regardless of the reasons,
> there still seems to be a lot of top end work that is necessary to
> maintain a typical Lycoming to TBO in your average privately owned GA
> aircraft, solely based on my own opinion and personal observations,
> which may not represent reality as a whole.
>
> Perhaps the term "reliable" is somewhat ambigious. To me, it means
> being able to run to the advertised TBO without doing any major work to
> the engine. Doing top end work part way through the TBO means the
> engine did not make it all the way to TBO without the extra work, thus
> reducing its "reliability" in my eyes.
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 |
|
Amen.
My two words on this subject - MOVE ON.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Phillips, Jack
Sent: Wednesday, 6 December 2006 2:31 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
<Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
Yeah, since I've got a Lycoming O-540 sitting in a crate in my basement,
if an email comes with the title "RV10 List: Eggenfellner", I just hit
"Delete"
Jack Phillips
#40610
Elevators
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 10:48 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
We have not had a primer war in a while? I think this engine thing is
bigger than primer ever was. I think we should start calling the primer
discussion an Engine War.
Do not archive.
_________________________________________________
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: Insurance Underwriting |
It really depends on each company. Your best bet for lowering your rates is an
IFR rating followed by total time and total time in type which some people forget
about. You will see exclusions for alternate power plants for the first 10
hours or so of operation, I guess if it runs for 10 hours it must be OK?? I've
seen this on Lycs too mainly on untested designs. The RV-10 has broken the 50
completed and flying mark, bet knowbody knew about that invisible barrier, this
has dropped some premiums but like gas prices, once they are there they seem
to stay. The worst thing that can happen now is for a rash of RV-10 incidents
not only for the humanity issue but for everyone elses coverage. Please all
you guys flying guys and gals be safe, prove the underwriters wrong.
Eggenfellner has an advantage over say a Corvair engine because he has a lot of
his packages flying and building sucessful time without much incident, David
D. and Ray are the only two I know about, David's threw belt if I recall that
shut down any rotation of the PSRU or crank, and Ray's (who has a sucessful RV-10
and posts here) lost power, I forget what exactly he thought but I think it
was suspected vapor lock. He is the POC for facts.
Underwriters are fickle, I'm from the risk managment, loss control side. Recently
age has become a factor, not your "age" but the age you received your PPL.
Think your credit rating has anything to do with your premium? bet on it. Just
another figure to show how responsible you may or may not be. My coverage...yes
mine...even though I am partnered in Aircraft Mutual, I still need insurance
for the now and near future, has some pretty high training requirements before
they effect flight coverage for me, 15 hours of dual in an RV-10, mainly because
of only 172 experience, I have TT just over 125. Remember it's a human that
checks the little boxes and what kinda day that person is having can determine
your coverage....underwriting is a dark art, thanks to the AOPA and the EAA,
they are fighting to educate insurance company's on how we do business, it
was not long ago I was having lunch with several underwriters from starts with
"A" ends with "G", all of them thought homebuilders
and pilots in general were a few bricks shy. I did my best to educate them for
the next half hour, then let them buy lunch, they might think I was nuts....but
I showed them I wasn't stupid!! ;)
Rick S.
do not archive
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insurance Underwriting |
Rick,
Last year my rates decreased fairly dramatically in our spam can while not
IFR, I did complete the Cessna FITS course on the G 1000 system plus added 300
hours in one year. Hope to finish up the IFR/Commercial rating in the next
couple of months but I doubt that this will lower my rate much.
Patrick
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 |
|
Jeff,=0A=0AIt sounds like you have some scuff marks or small dents. If tha
ts the case it should be fine. I would nevertheless check the area for cra
cks during inspections since the marks are on the spar. What you absolutel
y don't want is a tear, notch or anything that would give you a higher stre
ss concentration than a standard hole. Those I would personally repair eve
n if the structure is not highly loaded there. Until lots of hours are acc
umulated on RV10s we won't know where the inherently weak areas are. So fa
r the only one that has come out is on the vertical stab. One other genera
l note is that just because Van's says its okay not to repair something it
doesn't mean that they are right. Its not their skin on the line on that p
articular plane. Another thought is that for typicall commercial aircraft
spectrum if you increase the stress by 10% you will approximately halve the
fatigue life because life vs stress is an exponential function. The criti
cal areas will typically
be at a rivet hole, access hole or another stress riser that's why if the
structure has marginal life deburring edges of holes could turn out to be v
ery important. So even a small scratch that touches the edge of a hole sho
uld be buffed , removed , cleaned etc..=0A=0ANiko=0A40188=0A=0A=0A----- Ori
ginal Message ----=0AFrom: Jeff Carpenter <jeff@westcottpress.com>=0ATo: rv
10-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, December 5, 2006 3:23:05 PM=0ASubjec
enter <jeff@westcottpress.com>=0A=0AWhen the bottom leading edges of the fl
ap skins are riveted to the =0Aflange of the spar, you have to force your
hand down between the =0Askins with a bucking bar to buck those rivets. T
he bucking bar I =0Afavor is a left over hunk of metal from a printing pre
ss. All of the =0Asides are polished and the edges are polished and round
ed. If the =0Abase of the bar is resting on the web while bucking the fla
nge it =0Awill put a slight scar or scuff on the web from the kick back.
I'll =0Ausually put a piece of thick tape down on the web or on the bar
=0Aitself to keep this from happening. If the access doesn't allow it,
=0Aor I flat out forget, I'll hit the spots with a scotch bright pad, =0As
mooth them out, give them a quick shot of zinc chromate and move on.=0A=0AI
n the case of my flaps, I did none of the above. I got caught up in =0Ath
e "moment" (you all know how exciting riveting can get) and put a =0Aneat
row of scars across the inner web of my flap spar and buttoned =0Ait up wi
th pop rivets before it even occurred to me.=0A=0ACan those of you out ther
e with real life experience speak to the =0Anature of stress cracks... how
shy of perfect something can be before =0Ait's a potential problem. In m
y case, these are more "dent like" =0Athan "scratch like." I'd like to ge
t a sense of what I'm dealing =0Awith here. Should I move on and forget a
bout it? Move on and =0Ainspect it every so many hours once flying? Rebu
ild the flaps?=0A=0AI'm hoping, too, that this might give us a breather fro
m the =0AEggenfellner thread.=0A=0AJeff Carpenter=0AThinking I'm Finished
=========
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 |
|
I've installed a Sigtronics SPA-4S Stereo Intercom. My only complaint is it does
not have enough
audio inputs if you have things like warning tones from your EIS or AOA system
to integrate. Not
hard to wire up a summing amplifier in front of an existing input to combine audio
inputs but still
something you would not need to do on a more capable unit.
Perry Casson
Next question,
I was looking at intercom units and would like to put in the wiring to the
headphone jacks and wanted to know if anyone has experience with any of the
three units. All I would like to have, not too complicated to us and
install and one that functions well and one that I can hook up to say an
Ipod and or satallite radio(Stereo function)
AVCOMM DX-AC6PA INTERCOM
PM3000 PANEL MOUNT STEREO INTERCOM
Sigtronics SPA-4S Stereo Intercom
Any body ever used any of these brands?
John G
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: | Baggage door lock install later? |
Chris,
What was the answer you got, I erased too many emails when deleting the Egg
war. I read them all though. I am at the same spot with the QB but will be
cuting access panels this weekend I'm afraid, and doing nutplates on the
baggage compartment side panels.
John G.
>From: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston@popsound.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV10-List: Baggage door lock install later?
>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:24:21 -0800
>
>hey all -
>
>stupid question... you can install the baggage door lock later right? you
>can fit it through the hole no problem? i don't have it in my hand to be
>able to see, and i want to make sure i'm not screwing myself.
>
>thanks!
>
>cj
>
>#40410
>fuse
>www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
>
>do not archive
><< winmail.dat >>
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 |
|
John where are you talking about that you need a rod to get to, are you
talking about the side panels under the door frames? You can call me
directly, if you want to and discuss this, because once I remove all the
panels on the QB there is not an area I can not get to other than under
the front footwells. I am having a hard time understanding where you are
trying to get to that you would have to cut access holes.
Dan
724-983-1221
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:01 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: access panels
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Now that we all understand that graphite is carbon. What about the
reaction. I cannot get a rag in there to clean it off with any cleaner,
I
can't barely get the carbon rod to find the holes. The carbon rod which
is
now bevelled on the end will leave marks on a piece of paper, not as
well as
a pencil but you can see it. I put tape over the end to stop this, but
what
about what has already occured, just shoot in Boe lube and try for a few
more twenty minute sessions to get the rod and then the conduit to go
through the holes, or cut the access panels do a thorough cleaning, line
up
the conduit, but for all other purposes, the panels will probably never
be
used again.
John
>From: Les Kearney <kearney@shaw.ca>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: access panels
>Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:20:30 -0700
>
>
>Hi Rick
>
>Graphite is elemental carbon so if a pencil left marks it may be a
problem.
>That is why we use sharpies when marking parts.
>
>Cheers
>
>Les
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
>Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:11 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: access panels
>
>
>John,
>
>Isn't the carbon fiber wrapped around a rod then sealed with resin to
make
>those rods? I wouldn't think you would get actual carbon scraping off,
and
>pencils use graphite right? not carbon.
>
>Just a thought...
>
>Rick S.
>40185
>
>do not archive
>
>
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: | Baggage door lock install later? |
fine to do later. just an aside... while building the baggage door, i
really got a chance to see what things have an effect on whether it fits
or not. i just built the door per plans, then when i was trying to fit
it to the airframe, i got stymied. it's really the shape that you put
into the F-1046L longeron that has the most effect on whether the door
fits or not. mine does not. while working it to try to get it to fit,
i mangled it pretty badly. in the end, it was just an exercise in
whether i could make it fit no matter what the damage to the door. the
answer is yes, but it's not pretty. i was pretty bummed, and even
though few would ever see or notice, i would notice. and it would
bother me. if i had to do it again, and i do have to do it again, i
will do as someone else suggested and cleco the thing together, and
massage the frame til it fit nicely into the airframe, then match drill
and finish. i think i'll do this by gently fluting various things,
again as others have suggested. i have the feeling that if one were to
have PERFECTLY bent the F-1046L longeron at the upper edge of the frame
per the plans, the door would fit like magic. i suppose that my
longeron bending must have been slightly less than perfect. it was
pretty damned good though. harrumph. this is an area that requires a
little finesse i think, and if you boldly go forth and put together the
door without ever checking to see if it fits well in the frame, you
might end up with less than perfect results. Just to qualify "less than
perfect", with the door lined up at the forward edges, by the aft end,
the door was bowed out at the top by about 1/4". not much, but not
quite right.
cj
#40410
fuse
moving on...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of John Gonzalez
Sent: Tue 12/5/2006 3:39 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Baggage door lock install later?
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Chris,
What was the answer you got, I erased too many emails when deleting the
Egg
war. I read them all though. I am at the same spot with the QB but will
be
cuting access panels this weekend I'm afraid, and doing nutplates on the
baggage compartment side panels.
John G.
>From: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston@popsound.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV10-List: Baggage door lock install later?
>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:24:21 -0800
>
>hey all -
>
>stupid question... you can install the baggage door lock later right?
you
>can fit it through the hole no problem? i don't have it in my hand to
be
>able to see, and i want to make sure i'm not screwing myself.
>
>thanks!
>
>cj
>
>#40410
>fuse
>www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
>
>do not archive
><< winmail.dat >>
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 |
|
I can't remember if it was 1.125 OD, or 1.05...I thought the latter.
Oh well. I can't say for sure that you won't have any weakening
there, and no I didn't ask. I have seen people drill 2 holes
there, instead of 1. I haven't fallen from the sky yet, but
I suppose it could happen any day. ;)
As for space left over, everything I have front to rear is run through
those conduits. The side that has the 2 #2 welding wire runs is pretty
darn full. Not much space left. (I do have about 4 wires extra run
through just for future use, and even a couple shielded ones on the
other side.) The opposite side has space left for more antenna wire or
other things, even though it has my huge (pinky sized) tygon static
tube running through it. I've heard that a pair of .75" ID lines
is just barely enough to manage in simpler installations, so I wanted
to guarantee a troublefree install.
I can't help make up your mind on what to do about the holes, but
I'm glad I have the space I do. Esp. on the Left side, there's
just not much room to run things.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
seanblair@adelphia.net wrote:
>
> I'm getting ready to run conduit through the baqggage area and
> acquired the same stuff Tim Olsen is using. It looks great, lots of
> room, and should do the job. The concern I have is how large this is
> on the O.D. and will there be a significant weakening of the
> bulkheads from enlarging the holes to size?
>
> I believe the O.D. is 1.125 inches. I plan to run one on each side.
> Tim and others, after you installed this conduit, did you have alot
> of extra capacity left over? Could it be scaled down a little and
> still be sufficient?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sean Blair #40225
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: Eggenfellner |
All I want for Christmas is to have this subject go away. How many ways can
you beat a dead horse?
Mark (N410MR)
>From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:48:22 -0600
>
>
>Be forewarned, this is in a HUMOROUS tone....
>
>I guess by that rationality, the Subies have an extrordinary safety
>record in flight in the RV-10 installations. I've never once
>heard of someone having an off-airport landing in their Subie
>powered RV-10 before.
>
>"all these problems" just seems so strange to hear. When you count
>how many engines are out there, "all these" seems to be similar
>to saying "tons of U.S. Airline passenger deaths in the past 2 years"...
>just another sensationalist term. As a percentage of engines
>out there, it's actually amazing that if you eliminate pilot error,
>esp. due to fuel mismanagement, that you're left with an incredibly
>small pool of accidents to analyze.
>
>Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>do not archive
>
>
>Dj Merrill wrote:
>>
>>Hi Rhonda,
>> No real argument as to why the problems happen, I just find it
>>interesting (and somewhat amusing) that one of the strong arguments that
>>people use for choosing a Lycoming is the claimed "reliability", but yet
>>there are all these problems that seem to be occuring which indicates to
>>a neophyte like myself that they really aren't all that reliable after
>>all.
>>
>> If the Subaru engine is treated the same way as the Lyc, I'm not
>>convinced that we will see any more problems with it than the Lyc has,
>>but that is just my own opinion with no actual data to back it up. The
>>more brave souls that gather the Subaru data for us, the better to make
>>my decision down the road... :-)
>>
>>-Dj
>>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
View Athletes Collections with Live Search
http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01
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 |
|
Hmmmm
Mark, be careful what you ask for, .....
Anyway, as the originator of this thread, what I wanted was info. I readily
admit that I *knew* little about the issues related to engine selection. As
a new builder that has a multitude of choices & decisions looming in the
future, this is one I wanted to start considering sooner rather than later.
I do say many, many thanks to all who commented. I have a much better
appreciation of the factors / decision points / considerations involved.
Cheers
Les Kearney
RV10 # 40643 - Lost in the empennage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
All I want for Christmas is to have this subject go away. How many ways can
you beat a dead horse?
Mark (N410MR)
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: | Fuselage options (preset flaps) |
I see. This was the answer I was looking for. It's just this extra kit. Thanks.
Does anyone else think the flap switch on the columbia's are nice?
http://www1.airliners.net/open.file/1134043/L/
I may add that to the list of things to do once flying.
Jae
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 8:26 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuselage options (preset flaps)
Hi Jae,
Without the option the flap switch must be held until it reaches the desired
position while observing the flap indicator or looking out the window at the
flap. With the option there are three preset positions.
When the switch is activated, it extends the flaps to the next setting and
stops. However, only one touch is needed to raise the flaps. You can read more
about it on Van's site at:
www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1165249109-2-327&browse=a
irframe&product=fps
Vern (#324 Fuselage and having fun:)
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: | Just for discussion purposes... |
I know very little about engines at this point, but with all this
talk of Eggenfellner and Deltahawk, can anyone tell me why something
like the Mercedes 6 Cylinder Diesel (458 lbs and 224 hp @ 3800 rpm)
would not be a good foundation for a conversion to use in the RV-10.
Here's a link with a bit more info:
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2005/01daimler.php
Jefr Carpenter
40304
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 |
|
And the Bruins.
Bob K
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
I can see the headlines now....
RV-10 Matronics list members charged today in an incident where they
severely beat to death an already dead horse...... ;)
I'll bet this topic would not have gone on so long if you had to type
"Eggenfellner" each time you replyed!!
How bout them Broncos!!!!
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
PS-Barrett's XIO-540 due to arrive around the first of March
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: | Just for discussion purposes... |
Could be the high weight before you even start to bolt on accessories
and the all important PSRU? Also I would bet that it is not horizontally
opposed like the Lycomings or Subaru's, so it might not fit in a
standard cowl?
You could always develop a FWF package and TRY to get others to talk
about it?
HAHA!
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Carpenter
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 8:13 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Just for discussion purposes...
I know very little about engines at this point, but with all this
talk of Eggenfellner and Deltahawk, can anyone tell me why something
like the Mercedes 6 Cylinder Diesel (458 lbs and 224 hp @ 3800 rpm)
would not be a good foundation for a conversion to use in the RV-10.
Here's a link with a bit more info:
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2005/01daimler.php
Jefr Carpenter
40304
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: | Annual Condition Inspection checklist |
Have any of the fliers made up an ACI inspection checklist they are willing
to share with the group?
Grumpy
#40404, 37 hrs towards the 40 flyoff!
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: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Mark Ritter wrote:
> All I want for Christmas is to have this subject go away. How many ways
> can you beat a dead horse?
My apologies, Mark, and I mean no offense, but if this were truly a
dead horse then we would all have a plethora of information with which
to make an engine decision. There are still many of us that would like
to get as much information about the Subaru option as we can, and I
truly hope that the conversation and the exchange of information never ends.
I mean no ill towards those that no longer wish to participate in the
conversation, but isn't it a bit unfair to ask those of us that do wish
to share information to stop doing so? That is sorta the whole point
behind the mailing list...
Please, if you don't want to join in, then please just delete the
message and let the rest of us try to make sense out of what information
we can find and share with the group.
Thanks for understanding,
-Dj
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 |
|
Jeff,
Another example which is great training, is to cut aluminum tubing and
take various steps of preparation for a flare. Cut but unfilled with
hacksaw marks, filed square, deburred, and polished. Use the flare
tool and you will quickly develop skill as well as learn how stress
risers cause visible cracks in non-deburred edges immediately after
rolling. Edge preparation is a valued skill whether sheet, rod stock,
tubing or angle.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Niko
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Confession
Jeff,
It sounds like you have some scuff marks or small dents. If thats the
case it should be fine. I would nevertheless check the area for cracks
during inspections since the marks are on the spar. What you absolutely
don't want is a tear, notch or anything that would give you a higher
stress concentration than a standard hole. Those I would personally
repair even if the structure is not highly loaded there. Until lots of
hours are accumulated on RV10s we won't know where the inherently weak
areas are. So far the only one that has come out is on the vertical
stab. One other general note is that just because Van's says its okay
not to repair something it doesn't mean that they are right. Its not
their skin on the line on that particular plane. Another thought is
that for typicall commercial aircraft spectrum if you increase the
stress by 10% you will approximately halve the fatigue life because life
vs stress is an exponential function. The critical areas will typically
be at a rivet hole, access hole or another stress riser that's why if
the structure has marginal life deburring edges of holes could turn out
to be very important. So even a small scratch that touches the edge of
a hole should be buffed , removed , cleaned etc..
Niko
40188
----- Original Message ----
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff@westcottpress.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2006 3:23:05 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Confession
When the bottom leading edges of the flap skins are riveted to the
flange of the spar, you have to force your hand down between the
skins with a bucking bar to buck those rivets. The bucking bar I
favor is a left over hunk of metal from a printing press. All of the
sides are polished and the edges are polished and rounded. If the
base of the bar is resting on the web while bucking the flange it
will put a slight scar or scuff on the web from the kick back. I'll
usually put a piece of thick tape down on the web or on the bar
itself to keep this from happening. If the access doesn't allow it,
or I flat out forget, I'll hit the spots with a scotch bright pad,
smooth them out, give them a quick shot of zinc chromate and move on.
In the case of my flaps, I did none of the above. I got caught up in
the "moment" (you all know how exciting riveting can get) and put a
neat row of scars across the inner web of my flap spar and buttoned
it up with pop rivets before it even occurred to me.
Can those of you out there with real life experience speak to the
nature of stress cracks... how shy of perfect something can be before
it's a potential problem. In my case, these are more "dent like"
than "scratch like." I'd like to get a sense of what I'm dealing
with here. Should I move on and forget about it? Move on and
inspect it every so many hours once flying? Rebuild the flaps?
I'm hoping, too, that this might give us a breather from the
Eggenfellner thread.
Jeff Carpenter
Thinking sp; November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on
_"http://www.aeroelectric.com/" target=_blank>www.aeroelectric.com
bsp; * Aeroware Enterprises <http://www.kitlog.com/>
www.homontribution"
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
<http://www.homebuilthelp.com/>
_p; ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"
target=_blank>http://www.matro==============
========
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: | Airflow Performance Filter Maintenance |
Speaking of cleaning the filter, I can't seem to find any paperwork that
probably came with the filter. Does anyone have guidance on how to clean the
filter effectively?
Thanks,
Marcus
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 9:46 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Airflow Performance Filter Maintnance
The seats do come loose without much trouble, but to take them completely
out you need to remove the cover panel over the flap control tube by the
rear seats (or some have modified the seats to allow them to be removed with
that panel in place). Sliding the seat back past the normal stop, however,
will allow access to the screws. I like the idea of cutting the forward
tunnel cover back underneath the panel a little bit to allow access to that
area without removing as much of the rest of the interior, with nutplates
and a backing plate to tie them together.
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 Rick
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Airflow Performance Filter Maintnance
Richard,
It's not easy WITHOUT the quadrant....Some posts a while back addressed this
issue. I am using a fiberglass panel/console assembly and it ain't gonna be
easy either. Others were considering relocating the fliter for just such a
reason. I think the seats need to come out, then you can access the tunnel
cover so there are a few more steps than most realize.
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
--
7:18 AM
--
7:18 AM
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: | Baggage door lock install later? |
Thanks for the heads up. Sorry that happened, I know the feeling. I have
made two Verticle stabs and three right elevator trims. I couldn't deal
with the signature dent on the 1st VS and I also had to do that spar
retrofit anyway. The second is perfect.
My first trim tab ended up with a slight twist, I only noticed once it was
hanging off the HS while on the plane. The second, I thought I remembered
how to do it and forgot to countersink the spar and glued in the foam
ribs(Too late)and tried to do it to the hing, which actually worked but it
is not to plans. The third is perfect, except my proseal was out of date by
six months so I used a flexible epoxy instead of buying the $50.00 proseal
can for this use only as I have no more proseal projects(I Think) The
flexible epoxy leaves a little light burning in my head?? even after testing
on scrap.
My mother used to say" If you have to do it again, it will only come out
that much better." Only problem is that as we get older, one realizes that
you never get the time back....
Thanks,
John G.
>From: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston@popsound.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Baggage door lock install later?
>Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 16:20:28 -0800
>
>fine to do later. just an aside... while building the baggage door, i
>really got a chance to see what things have an effect on whether it fits or
>not. i just built the door per plans, then when i was trying to fit it to
>the airframe, i got stymied. it's really the shape that you put into the
>F-1046L longeron that has the most effect on whether the door fits or not.
> mine does not. while working it to try to get it to fit, i mangled it
>pretty badly. in the end, it was just an exercise in whether i could make
>it fit no matter what the damage to the door. the answer is yes, but it's
>not pretty. i was pretty bummed, and even though few would ever see or
>notice, i would notice. and it would bother me. if i had to do it again,
>and i do have to do it again, i will do as someone else suggested and cleco
>the thing together, and massage the frame til it fit nicely into the
>airframe, then match drill and finish. i think i'll do this by gently
>fluting various things, again as others have suggested. i have the feeling
>that if one were to have PERFECTLY bent the F-1046L longeron at the upper
>edge of the frame per the plans, the door would fit like magic. i suppose
>that my longeron bending must have been slightly less than perfect. it was
>pretty damned good though. harrumph. this is an area that requires a
>little finesse i think, and if you boldly go forth and put together the
>door without ever checking to see if it fits well in the frame, you might
>end up with less than perfect results. Just to qualify "less than
>perfect", with the door lined up at the forward edges, by the aft end, the
>door was bowed out at the top by about 1/4". not much, but not quite
>right.
>
>cj
>#40410
>fuse
>moving on...
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of John Gonzalez
>Sent: Tue 12/5/2006 3:39 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Baggage door lock install later?
>
>
>Chris,
>
>What was the answer you got, I erased too many emails when deleting the Egg
>war. I read them all though. I am at the same spot with the QB but will be
>cuting access panels this weekend I'm afraid, and doing nutplates on the
>baggage compartment side panels.
>
>John G.
>
>
> >From: "Chris Johnston" <CJohnston@popsound.com>
> >To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RV10-List: Baggage door lock install later?
> >Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:24:21 -0800
> >
> >hey all -
> >
> >stupid question... you can install the baggage door lock later right?
>you
> >can fit it through the hole no problem? i don't have it in my hand to be
> >able to see, and i want to make sure i'm not screwing myself.
> >
> >thanks!
> >
> >cj
> >
> >#40410
> >fuse
> >www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
> >
> >do not archive
>
>
> ><< winmail.dat >>
>
>
><< winmail.dat >>
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 |
|
Daniel it is 8:15pm here so I'll call you tomorrow as it is probably late
east of here.
Thanks,
John
>From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: access panels
>Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:55:27 -0500
>
>
>John where are you talking about that you need a rod to get to, are you
>talking about the side panels under the door frames? You can call me
>directly, if you want to and discuss this, because once I remove all the
>panels on the QB there is not an area I can not get to other than under
>the front footwells. I am having a hard time understanding where you are
>trying to get to that you would have to cut access holes.
>Dan
>724-983-1221
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
>Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:01 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: access panels
>
><indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
>
>Now that we all understand that graphite is carbon. What about the
>reaction. I cannot get a rag in there to clean it off with any cleaner,
>I
>can't barely get the carbon rod to find the holes. The carbon rod which
>is
>now bevelled on the end will leave marks on a piece of paper, not as
>well as
>a pencil but you can see it. I put tape over the end to stop this, but
>what
>about what has already occured, just shoot in Boe lube and try for a few
>
>more twenty minute sessions to get the rod and then the conduit to go
>through the holes, or cut the access panels do a thorough cleaning, line
>up
>the conduit, but for all other purposes, the panels will probably never
>be
>used again.
>
>John
>
>
> >From: Les Kearney <kearney@shaw.ca>
> >To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: RE: RV10-List: access panels
> >Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:20:30 -0700
> >
> >
> >Hi Rick
> >
> >Graphite is elemental carbon so if a pencil left marks it may be a
>problem.
> >That is why we use sharpies when marking parts.
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Les
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> >[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
> >Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:11 PM
> >To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: RV10-List: access panels
> >
> >
> >John,
> >
> >Isn't the carbon fiber wrapped around a rod then sealed with resin to
>make
> >those rods? I wouldn't think you would get actual carbon scraping off,
>and
> >pencils use graphite right? not carbon.
> >
> >Just a thought...
> >
> >Rick S.
> >40185
> >
> >do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
Tim,
You ran extra wires for FUTURE avionics? You already have things in
that plane that myself and others have not even DREAMED about yet. I wa
nt in my FUTURE a hired pilot flying me, remotes in my hand watching vid
eos/sateliteTV in the rear seat, drinking lots of cold imported beer and
waiting to land at another exotic white sand beach. LOL OK........ma
ybe I will put in a few 3 1/4 guages to make it IFR legal in a few years
to fill up a few of the empty conduits before my FUTURE dream plane.
Beats reading Eggenfeller posts,
DEAN 40449
________________________________________________________________________
<html><P>Tim,</P>
<P>You ran extra wires for FUTURE avionics? You
already have things in that plane that myself and others have not even D
REAMED about yet. I want in my FUTURE a hired pilot flying me
, remotes in my hand watching videos/sateliteTV in the rear se
at, drinking lots of cold imported beer and waiting to land at another e
xotic white sand beach. LOL OK........maybe I will put in a
few 3 1/4 guages to make it IFR legal in a few years to fill up a few o
f the empty conduits before my FUTURE dream plane.</P>
<P>Beats reading Eggenfeller posts,</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>
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: | FW: RE: This is umm?? This dead horse has three broken legs. |
Dj,
For those wanting more information, I feel I should share this with you.
Again, Eric Wolf runs Wolf Aerospace and is supposed to be currently working
on a water cooled/direct drive Lyco replacement.
I need to touch basis with him and see whats up. I know, we have all heard
the same story before.
Read below about the problem with reduction drives on internal combustion
engines.
I imagine some of these gear wear spots could be minimized by using worm
drive gearing as it spreads the force out over a greater surface area. Below
explains the problem well.
Even with this said Eggs are still not out of my thought process. Just more
food for thought.
>From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric@wolfaerospace.com>
>To: "'John Gonzalez'" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
>Subject: RE: This is umm??
>Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:30:51 -0800
>
>Hi John. The reason gear reductions are a problem in planes is that you fly
>full throttle most of the time. Cars have a torque converter or a clutch
>which absorbs the oscillations of the power pulses. The gears of a airplane
>gear reduction are constantly beating each other up all the time. The
>propeller is fighting the air and is wanting to slow down and the engine
>produces a power pulse every 90 degrees of revolution(8 cylinder)(180 for a
>4 cylinder). At the point of power the gears are smashed together, as soon
>as the power pulse is over the gears slam each other the other way because
>of the prop trying to stop due to wind resistance. Its quite nasty and can
>set up a harmonic at certain rpm's that can destroy the reduction drive.
>You
>know when you are drilling teeth and you get that sweet spot rpm and
>everything works well. But then you slow down while cutting and it gets
>rough. Same thing kind of. Its not optimum at all but Subaru does not make
>an engine big enough to fly a plane. They are getting HP by revving up the
>engine then reducing rpm with a gear drive.. The old Conti and Lyc engines
>are tough but outdated. I am improving what already works the best.
>Bombardier aerospace has an engine that revs to 6000 rpm and was available
>in turbo and non turbo It had a gear drive and a small displacement. They
>said it would be the engine of choice. I Have heard nothing for a while. I
>presume its a dead issue. There is no place for a wimpy engine in an
>airplane. Everybody gets confused with driving cars as much as we do. An
>aircraft engine is the only thing keeping you from crashing,,,,,Why skimp
>on
>power or strength or design. I am glad everybody is trying to make these
>ridicules engines. Every day you hear of some crazy new design that uses
>some new method of engine or some other band aid. Airplanes need big beefy
>no excuses power. I would gladly drive a prius. But I want power in my
>plane
>or on a passenger jet. I do intend to make a version of my engine with
>catalytic converters. The amount of oil, raw fuel and lead spewing out of
>our planes today is unacceptable. I am very excited about the future of my
>engines. They will be so much cleaner than what we have today. As far as
>the
>twin turbos on a Subaru. Its a good engine but do you really want to have
>your kids in an airplane with an overstressed engine that is not made for
>aircraft?? Or how about being an unpaid test pilot?
>
>In your RV10, how much can the engine weigh and how much power is
>recommended? Do they have a maximum power recommended?
>
>
>Eric.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Gonzalez [mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com]
>Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 9:00 AM
>To: Eric@wolfaerospace.com
>Subject: RE: This is umm??
>
>Isn't a car's transmission considerred a gear reduction. Why is it a
>bigger
>problem in an airplane. One would think that because the propeller
>supplies
>a constant load, unlike a car wheels, that it would be easier on the gears.
>
>What do you think about the idea of the twin turbos on the Eggenfellner's.
>
>John
>
>
> >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric@wolfaerospace.com>
> >To: "'John Gonzalez'" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
> >Subject: RE: This is umm??
> >Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:37:43 -0800
> >
> >I think turbine engines get efficient at 30000 feet. You will never go
> >above 12500 without oxygen. I have flown all over the place. I flew all
> >the way to Tennessee once. I fly to Vegas, Mammoth, Utah, Arizona, san
> >Francisco. I did all this under 12500 except for the Tennessee flight.
> >I did that at 13500 with oxygen. I saw in their web site the rebuild
> >cost would be one third the cost of the engine. I think if you need
> >260hp, your best bet would be a Lycoming or continental right now. I
> >hate to say that but it is the only big engine without a gear
> >reduction. Gear reductions are big problems on piston engines. They all
> >say they have it figured out but they just dont last. On a turbine
> >engine, gear reductions are not bad because there are no power pulses
> >to beat the gear reduction apart. If Innodyn gets it done soon, maybe
> >that would be interesting. The fuel consumption is high on a turbine
> >but they also have a lot of advantages. Maybe I will have an engine
> >done in time for your plane......
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: John Gonzalez [mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:49 AM
> >To: Eric@wolfaerospace.com
> >Subject: RE: This is umm??
> >
> >Eric, they claim a 5000 hr O.H. time. NO indication as to how much $
> >to rebuild. Dought I would have to if it doesn't fall apart..."IF"
> >
> >According to Charlie Sullivan at Innodyn the test pilot was able to do
> >something to jimmy the system and prevent the computer from doing its
> >normal task. Then the problem occured.
> >
> >Here is what I intend to do with my plane. After flying off the hours
> >at the local airport the power plane will be used for trips only.
> >Mammoth several times a year. SW Colorado a lot and Idaho once a year.
> >I will probably fly the sailplane more for the spiritual side of flying
> >and leave the power plane as a tool.
> >
> >I may base the glider in Bishop in the summers and fly to it instead of
> >doing cross country flights as the driving costs and time are getting
> >prohibitive.
> >
> >
> > >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric@wolfaerospace.com>
> > >To: "'John Gonzalez'" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
> > >Subject: This is umm??
> > >Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:42:41 -0800
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >"we confirmed the need for fully integrated flight systems and the
> > >importance of specialized pilot training on operating our turbine. "
> > >
> > >
> > >I pulled this from their web site. This is exactly what I am talking
> >about.
> > >I think the aviation world is high on crazy pills!!!!!!!! Why do I
> > >need to be trained for something that should just work!!!! PUSH THE
> > >KNOB FORWARD AND IT MAKES MORE POWER, PULL THE KNOB BACK AND IT MAKES
> > >LESS!!!!! That's all you will need to know for my engine. No Shock
> > >cooling or overheating, no carb ice, just power when and where you
> > >need it. I would rather fly the plane than worry about what the
> > >engine is doing. Imagine if you had to drive a car like you fly a
>plane,,haha,,.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Wolf Aerospace Corp.
> > >1152 Acacia Ct.
> > >Ontario Ca. 91761
> > >(909)947-2121
> > >FAX (909)947-5299
> > >The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
> > >privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
> > >e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended
> > >recipient, any disclosure, copying distribution or any action taken
> > >or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
> > >unlawful
> > >
> > >--
> > >3/22/2006
> > >
> > >
> > ><< wolfx.jpg >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >3/22/2006
> >
> >
> >--
> >3/22/2006
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>
>
>--
>
>
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 |
|
You forgot the beautiful stewardess serving the drinks. Where's your head
man!
>From: "ddddsp1@juno.com" <ddddsp1@juno.com>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Conduit
>Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 04:45:04 GMT
>
>Tim,
>You ran extra wires for FUTURE avionics? You already have things in
>that plane that myself and others have not even DREAMED about yet. I want
>in my FUTURE a hired pilot flying me, remotes in my hand watching
>videos/sateliteTV in the rear seat, drinking lots of cold imported beer and
>waiting to land at another exotic white sand beach. LOL OK........maybe
>I will put in a few 3 1/4 guages to make it IFR legal in a few years to
>fill up a few of the empty conduits before my FUTURE dream plane.
>Beats reading Eggenfeller posts,
>DEAN 40449
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
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: | FW: RE: More engine stuff, four broken legs |
>From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric@wolfaerospace.com>
>To: "'John Gonzalez'" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
>Subject: RE: More engine stuff
>Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:21:21 -0800
>
>If I won the lottery I would move to Hawaii and surf all day HAHA!!!
>
>I have a program that checks if something is strong enough for the load
>that
>it is going to see. I have made everything 5 times stronger. I have A LOT
>of
>experience with CAD and engineering aircraft parts. I also have made tons
>of
>tooling and machined all kinds of different metals. I have also put lots on
>engines together. I am taking the approach that will make the engine run
>the
>first time. I will then put all the parts on a diet. My engine will make
>way
>more power, so a few pounds will not matter at first. My 8 cylinder will be
>about 50 Lbs heavier than the 6 cylinder it will replace. That is with
>water
>, radiator, complete engine. I have a full working model of all the parts
>that make the engine. The program has a motion simulator and a stress
>analysis program that will show week spots. It is true that once we have
>all
>the parts to assemble the engine, there will be some changes required once
>we have it running. We have made tooling that is more complicated than an
>engine so we are used to this kind of work. We work with close tolerances
>every day. I honestly think making engines will be a step back in terms of
>difficulty and complexity compared to what we do now. I have been designing
>it now for 3 years in my spare time. I have all the equipment now so that
>is
>out of the way. That is way more than most people who are making an engine
>have done. One thing that I have that they do not is a complete
>manufacturing facility to make parts as I need them. I do not need to go
>outside to get anything. Valves, valve springs, pistons, rings, seals,
>bolts, etc, are readily available from a catalog. I will make heads, case
>halves, intake manifold, oil pan, valve covers, etc from aluminum castings
>here in my shop. And crank, cam, and other steel parts on my CNC's from
>billet stock. When I look at projects I have done before that were large
>and
>complex, this is not that bad. I think if money were no problem and I could
>put my whole shop to work on it, I could do it in 6 months at a cost of
>about 500K. When I sell my plane I will have 100K. I would say that 400K is
>for labor and 100K for material and tooling, mostly tooling. I bought a
>lottery ticket today, so cross your fingers. I bought one last week, but
>didnt even get one number!! One good thing is that when I do get this done
>I will need someone to put some hours on the engine. I will buy a Cirrus
>and
>swap engines. So you are welcome to fly it as much as you want. All I would
>ask is that the person flying make notes of how it performs. I would really
>check it out a lot before I would let anyone fly it though. I would fly it
>with a parachute for the first few flights even though it has one on the
>plane. Always have a backup plan! I would not want anyone to get hurt from
>something a made. This engine will be built like a Swiss watch and be
>better
>than anything out there. I will sell them at the same price as what it will
>replace. The two big engine manufacturers Will probably down talk my
>engine,
>but it will be an awesome engine.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Gonzalez [mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:18 PM
>To: Eric@wolfaerospace.com
>Subject: RE: More engine stuff
>
>Thanks for the reply.
>
>Do you have a working model yet? The picture is nice but you could draw
>that and make a wish list for things you would like the engine to do, but
>how does it all come together? Cad drawings with computer simulation of
>working parts all working in unison and looking for problems and conflicts.
>
>Isn't until it is a complete assembly, functioning, that you start learning
>where the problems are. What have you got more than an idea? You said you
>have a computer program that checks metal strength tolerances.
>
>If you won the lottery tonight, realistically at full bore and full
>enthusiasm, how long to completion with all testing behind you?
>
>All that are doing something like this seem to be taking a lot longer than
>originally planned.
>
>
> >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric@wolfaerospace.com>
> >To: "'John Gonzalez'" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
> >Subject: RE: More engine stuff
> >Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:44:51 -0800
> >
> >Just as a quick note. My engines are designed for a 100% duty cycle. That
> >means you will be able to fly full throttle in any air temp at any
> >altitude.
> >I hate limitations so I decided very early to not have any. I will also
>be
> >able to get a 3000 hour TBO easily.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: John Gonzalez [mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 1:28 PM
> >To: eric@wolfaerospace.com
> >Subject: More engine stuff
> >
> >Thanks for the link to how it works.com
> >
> >I misunderstood you during our conversation as you had said that you had
> >made something much shorter on your engine...perhaps it was simply the
> >entire engine footprint as your cylinders could be more tightly spaced
> >without all the cooling fins. I have taken apart outboard boat engines
> >before so I am not that unfamiliar with an internal combuston engine's
> >function.
> >
> >I was wondering whether you have ever looked at Eggenfellner aircraft
> >engines? They seem to be putting together a very complete product and it
> >is
> >much more technologically advanced than the usual air cooled aircraft
> >engine. From what it looks like on their web site, they seem to be
>running
> >their H-6 engine at very high RPM to get the 225hp for takeoff.
> >
> >What is your thought about this high rev during a 10-15 minute climb.
> >
> >I seem to remember my father manual transmission, Acura Integra getting
>to
> >say 5700-6000 RPM and I got scared the engine would launch a piston or
> >something.
> >
> >They say they will be offering a supercharger to allow better performance
> >up
> >to 16K.
> >
> >What are your thoughts?
> >
> >John Gonzalez
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>
>
>--
>
>
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 |
|
Well, there's still no interior lights other than panel lights, and
no built-in electronic O2 system. Then a couple of wires for
battery bus uses if I ever find any (alarm system...). After
that it'll get tougher....maybe a hot water heater so my sink
has hot water, and then there's the flush toilet and vanity.
I still won't have a kitchen sink, but a shower would be nice
on the longer flights. ;)
You can tell the difference between me and some....I'm the guy
who says "well, it's only 1.5 extra pounds of wire". <G>
The thing I don't get about your dream is, why aren't YOU
flying that plane instead of the hired pilot? Man if I had
10 million dollars, I'd still be broke but I'd be flying
myself around in a Viper jet. ;)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
ddddsp1@juno.com wrote:
> Tim,
>
> You ran extra wires for FUTURE avionics? You already have things in
> that plane that myself and others have not even DREAMED about yet. I
> want in my FUTURE a hired pilot flying me, remotes in my hand watching
> videos/sateliteTV in the rear seat, drinking lots of cold imported beer
> and waiting to land at another exotic white sand beach. LOL
> OK........maybe I will put in a few 3 1/4 guages to make it IFR legal in
> a few years to fill up a few of the empty conduits before my FUTURE
> dream plane.
>
> Beats reading Eggenfeller posts,
>
> DEAN 40449
>
>
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 mom, I promise I'll bury it, it's starting to smell |
For you guys in the know. Again, who knows, everyone has dreams!!!!!!
Hi John. Thank you for the links. I checked out the web sites and they both
look good. It was great talking with you last night. Hearing the frustration
you have over the current technology is very motivating to me, I feel the
same way. I know I could take over the piston engine market if I had my
project at 100%. I looked at the planes and molds you made, very impressive.
Attached is a picture of the 9 axis CNC machine and a picture of my engine.
The picture has the valve covers and lots of parts missing and also a lot of
transparent parts. I am sending you this picture in the strictest
confidence. Please do not let it out of your hands. Feel free to talk about
it as much as you want with your pilot friends. Some of the important facts
about my engine are as follows.
1. Billet crankshaft
2. Billet camshafts (hollow)
3. All aluminum cylinder head and cases. We are using a special aluminum
that an engineer friend said would be the best. It's a custom blend that has
high heat resilience. Not that my engine is going to get too hot, but incase
of a coolant leak, I intend to be able to use the engine at 50% power to get
to a safe landing place.
4. Redundant oil pumps
5. Dry sump oil system
6. Full FADEC
7. Overhead cams
8. Redundant water pumps
There is a lot more info, but you get the idea. Also, we have a 4,6 and 8
cylinder. All engines will have turbo as an option. The displacement of the
engines runs from 245 cubic inches to over 700 cubic inches. The power
levels run from 150 hp to over 800 hp. The weight of the unit will be very
close to existing engines in all sizes. All engines will be much more fuel
efficient and produce much more HP per cubic inch than the status quo.
Enjoy,
Eric Wolf.
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: FW: RE: This is umm?? This dead horse has three broken |
legs.
I know nothing about this new engine entry but did notice that it is based
in Canada. Having lived outside the USA for many years, one learns that
there are many different laws affecting business transactions. The
difficulty and cost of enforcing a business transaction where they have your
money and your new engine can be daunting. Ask some of the RV builders who
have dealt with Crossflow or Mistral.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:59 PM
Subject: RV10-List: FW: RE: This is umm?? This dead horse has three broken
legs.
Dj,
For those wanting more information, I feel I should share this with you.
Again, Eric Wolf runs Wolf Aerospace and is supposed to be currently working
on a water cooled/direct drive Lyco replacement.
I need to touch basis with him and see whats up. I know, we have all heard
the same story before.
Read below about the problem with reduction drives on internal combustion
engines.
I imagine some of these gear wear spots could be minimized by using worm
drive gearing as it spreads the force out over a greater surface area. Below
explains the problem well.
Even with this said Eggs are still not out of my thought process. Just more
food for thought.
>From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric@wolfaerospace.com>
>To: "'John Gonzalez'" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
>Subject: RE: This is umm??
>Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:30:51 -0800
>
>Hi John. The reason gear reductions are a problem in planes is that you fly
>full throttle most of the time. Cars have a torque converter or a clutch
>which absorbs the oscillations of the power pulses. The gears of a airplane
>gear reduction are constantly beating each other up all the time. The
>propeller is fighting the air and is wanting to slow down and the engine
>produces a power pulse every 90 degrees of revolution(8 cylinder)(180 for a
>4 cylinder). At the point of power the gears are smashed together, as soon
>as the power pulse is over the gears slam each other the other way because
>of the prop trying to stop due to wind resistance. Its quite nasty and can
>set up a harmonic at certain rpm's that can destroy the reduction drive.
>You
>know when you are drilling teeth and you get that sweet spot rpm and
>everything works well. But then you slow down while cutting and it gets
>rough. Same thing kind of. Its not optimum at all but Subaru does not make
>an engine big enough to fly a plane. They are getting HP by revving up the
>engine then reducing rpm with a gear drive.. The old Conti and Lyc engines
>are tough but outdated. I am improving what already works the best.
>Bombardier aerospace has an engine that revs to 6000 rpm and was available
>in turbo and non turbo It had a gear drive and a small displacement. They
>said it would be the engine of choice. I Have heard nothing for a while. I
>presume it's a dead issue. There is no place for a wimpy engine in an
>airplane. Everybody gets confused with driving cars as much as we do. An
>aircraft engine is the only thing keeping you from crashing,,,,,Why skimp
>on
>power or strength or design. I am glad everybody is trying to make these
>ridicules engines. Every day you hear of some crazy new design that uses
>some new method of engine or some other band aid. Airplanes need big beefy
>no excuses power. I would gladly drive a prius. But I want power in my
>plane
>or on a passenger jet. I do intend to make a version of my engine with
>catalytic converters. The amount of oil, raw fuel and lead spewing out of
>our planes today is unacceptable. I am very excited about the future of my
>engines. They will be so much cleaner than what we have today. As far as
>the
>twin turbos on a Subaru. It's a good engine but do you really want to have
>your kids in an airplane with an overstressed engine that is not made for
>aircraft?? Or how about being an unpaid test pilot?
>
>In your RV10, how much can the engine weigh and how much power is
>recommended? Do they have a maximum power recommended?
>
>
>Eric.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Gonzalez [mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com]
>Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 9:00 AM
>To: Eric@wolfaerospace.com
>Subject: RE: This is umm??
>
>Isn't a car's transmission considerred a gear reduction. Why is it a
>bigger
>problem in an airplane. One would think that because the propeller
>supplies
>a constant load, unlike a car wheels, that it would be easier on the gears.
>
>What do you think about the idea of the twin turbos on the Eggenfellner's.
>
>John
>
>
> >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric@wolfaerospace.com>
> >To: "'John Gonzalez'" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
> >Subject: RE: This is umm??
> >Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:37:43 -0800
> >
> >I think turbine engines get efficient at 30000 feet. You will never go
> >above 12500 without oxygen. I have flown all over the place. I flew all
> >the way to Tennessee once. I fly to Vegas, Mammoth, Utah, Arizona, san
> >Francisco. I did all this under 12500 except for the Tennessee flight.
> >I did that at 13500 with oxygen. I saw in their web site the rebuild
> >cost would be one third the cost of the engine. I think if you need
> >260hp, your best bet would be a Lycoming or continental right now. I
> >hate to say that but it is the only big engine without a gear
> >reduction. Gear reductions are big problems on piston engines. They all
> >say they have it figured out but they just don't last. On a turbine
> >engine, gear reductions are not bad because there are no power pulses
> >to beat the gear reduction apart. If Innodyn gets it done soon, maybe
> >that would be interesting. The fuel consumption is high on a turbine
> >but they also have a lot of advantages. Maybe I will have an engine
> >done in time for your plane......
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: John Gonzalez [mailto:indigoonlatigo@msn.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:49 AM
> >To: Eric@wolfaerospace.com
> >Subject: RE: This is umm??
> >
> >Eric, they claim a 5000 hr O.H. time. NO indication as to how much $
> >to rebuild. Dought I would have to if it doesn't fall apart..."IF"
> >
> >According to Charlie Sullivan at Innodyn the test pilot was able to do
> >something to jimmy the system and prevent the computer from doing its
> >normal task. Then the problem occured.
> >
> >Here is what I intend to do with my plane. After flying off the hours
> >at the local airport the power plane will be used for trips only.
> >Mammoth several times a year. SW Colorado a lot and Idaho once a year.
> >I will probably fly the sailplane more for the spiritual side of flying
> >and leave the power plane as a tool.
> >
> >I may base the glider in Bishop in the summers and fly to it instead of
> >doing cross country flights as the driving costs and time are getting
> >prohibitive.
> >
> >
> > >From: "Eric Wolf" <Eric@wolfaerospace.com>
> > >To: "'John Gonzalez'" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
> > >Subject: This is umm??
> > >Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:42:41 -0800
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >"we confirmed the need for fully integrated flight systems and the
> > >importance of specialized pilot training on operating our turbine. "
> > >
> > >
> > >I pulled this from their web site. This is exactly what I am talking
> >about.
> > >I think the aviation world is high on crazy pills!!!!!!!! Why do I
> > >need to be trained for something that should just work!!!! PUSH THE
> > >KNOB FORWARD AND IT MAKES MORE POWER, PULL THE KNOB BACK AND IT MAKES
> > >LESS!!!!! That's all you will need to know for my engine. No Shock
> > >cooling or overheating, no carb ice, just power when and where you
> > >need it. I would rather fly the plane than worry about what the
> > >engine is doing. Imagine if you had to drive a car like you fly a
>plane,,haha,,.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Wolf Aerospace Corp.
> > >1152 Acacia Ct.
> > >Ontario Ca. 91761
> > >(909)947-2121
> > >FAX (909)947-5299
> > >The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
> > >privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
> > >e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended
> > >recipient, any disclosure, copying distribution or any action taken
> > >or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
> > >unlawful
> > >
> > >--
> > >3/22/2006
> > >
> > >
> > ><< wolfx.jpg >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >3/22/2006
> >
> >
> >--
> >3/22/2006
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>
>
>--
>
>
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: Eggenfellner |
Hi team.
I agree with Dj, this is just what the list is about, exchange of
info'!! A little bit of cut& thrust!!!! The more knowledgeable list members
should be more tolerant of us lesser mortals.
Fly safe Noel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dj Merrill" <deej@deej.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
> Mark Ritter wrote:
>> All I want for Christmas is to have this subject go away. How many ways
>> can you beat a dead horse?
>
> My apologies, Mark, and I mean no offense, but if this were truly a
> dead horse then we would all have a plethora of information with which
> to make an engine decision. There are still many of us that would like
> to get as much information about the Subaru option as we can, and I
> truly hope that the conversation and the exchange of information never
> ends.
>
> I mean no ill towards those that no longer wish to participate in the
> conversation, but isn't it a bit unfair to ask those of us that do wish
> to share information to stop doing so? That is sorta the whole point
> behind the mailing list...
>
> Please, if you don't want to join in, then please just delete the
> message and let the rest of us try to make sense out of what information
> we can find and share with the group.
>
> Thanks for understanding,
>
> -Dj
>
>
> --
>
>
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! --
|