Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:54 AM - Re: One of the best moves I've made yet - Redux (Michael Wellenzohn)
2. 06:00 AM - Re: Not about Priming (MauleDriver)
3. 06:02 AM - Re: Re: One of the best moves I've made yet - Redux (MauleDriver)
4. 06:03 AM - Re: Not about Priming (MauleDriver)
5. 06:39 AM - Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (John W. Cox)
6. 06:52 AM - Re: Not about Priming (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
7. 07:38 AM - I0-540 hottest cylinder (Ted French)
8. 07:47 AM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (John Gonzalez)
9. 07:59 AM - Re: I0-540 hottest cylinder (Rob Kermanj)
10. 08:06 AM - Re: I0-540 hottest cylinder (Tim Olson)
11. 08:18 AM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (NYTerminat)
12. 08:43 AM - Re: I0-540 hottest cylinder (Bill DeRouchey)
13. 09:11 AM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (Kelly McMullen)
14. 09:24 AM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (John W. Cox)
15. 09:38 AM - Re: I0-540 hottest cylinder (Randy Lervold)
16. 09:48 AM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (John W. Cox)
17. 10:15 AM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (Kelly McMullen)
18. 10:35 AM - Re: #41 drill bit.. is it really better? (Pascal)
19. 10:58 AM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (Tim Olson)
20. 11:57 AM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (Rick)
21. 12:03 PM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (John Gonzalez)
22. 12:21 PM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (Phillips, Jack)
23. 01:26 PM - Work Table Size (orchidman)
24. 01:47 PM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (Rick)
25. 01:50 PM - Re: Work Table Size (Rick)
26. 02:07 PM - Re: Work Table Size (Les Kearney)
27. 02:12 PM - Re: Work Table Size (Niko)
28. 02:14 PM - Garmin 496 - IFR? ()
29. 02:18 PM - Re: Work Table Size (orchidman)
30. 02:20 PM - Re: #41 drill bit.. is it really better? (Niko)
31. 02:26 PM - Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? (James Hein)
32. 02:32 PM - Re: Work Table Size (orchidman)
33. 02:38 PM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (Larry Rosen)
34. 02:46 PM - Garmin 496 -Antenna (Larry Rosen)
35. 02:47 PM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (Larry Rosen)
36. 02:50 PM - Re: Work Table Size (Steve Stella)
37. 02:50 PM - Re: #41 drill bit.. is it really better? (Jeff Carpenter)
38. 02:54 PM - Re: Re: Work Table Size (Larry Rosen)
39. 03:08 PM - Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? (Jesse Saint)
40. 03:11 PM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Jesse Saint)
41. 03:15 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? ()
42. 03:19 PM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna ()
43. 03:36 PM - Re: Work Table Size (Jon Reining)
44. 04:43 PM - Re: Re: Work Table Size (Tim Olson)
45. 05:18 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna ()
46. 05:54 PM - Re: Re: Work Table Size (EFDsteve@aol.com)
47. 06:03 PM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Tim Olson)
48. 06:26 PM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Kelly McMullen)
49. 06:33 PM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (W. Curtis)
50. 06:33 PM - Re: Work Table Size (orchidman)
51. 06:48 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (David McNeill)
52. 07:01 PM - Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? (David Boone)
53. 07:19 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna ()
54. 07:19 PM - RV 10 designation with FAA (GenGrumpy@aol.com)
55. 07:22 PM - Re: Deperately seeking opinions - (well maybe urgently seeking ) (Jesse Saint)
56. 07:24 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Tim Olson)
57. 07:32 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna ()
58. 07:37 PM - Re: Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna ()
59. 07:47 PM - Re: RV 10 designation with FAA (Marcus Cooper)
60. 07:56 PM - Re: Work Table Size (MauleDriver)
61. 08:01 PM - Re: RV 10 designation with FAA (Mike Kraus)
62. 08:17 PM - Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? (MauleDriver)
63. 08:28 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Kelly McMullen)
64. 08:59 PM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (Dave Leikam)
65. 09:05 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Kelly McMullen)
66. 10:35 PM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (Larry Rosen)
67. 11:51 PM - Another New RV-10 Builder (N127KR@aol.com)
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: One of the best moves I've made yet - Redux |
Hi Les,
in Switzerland it is mandatory to ave your parts inspected once you finished them.
I believe it is a good practise. I will give you feedback about the quality
of your work and also build a good relationship with the experts.
Keep on the good work!
Michael (wings)
#40511
--------
RV-10 builder (wings)
#511
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81449#81449
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: Not about Priming |
I'm definitely 'drilling' but actually reaming the pre-punched holes
where drilling isn't required. Reams seems to produce a better hole.
Anyway, what I intend to take a critical look at with a my jewelers
loupe (or whatever those things are called) are prepunched 3/32 holes,
reamed, dimpled, then deburred with red Scotchbrite -- compared to the
same holes reamed, deburred with a tool, then dimpled. It seemed to me
that reamed dimple holes could be effectively and productively deburred
with a vigorous Scotchbrite scrubbing.
Bill "Got my back-rivet plate in place and enjoying some error free
progress on the elevators" Watson
Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
>
> They have not updated that section of the manual in a long time, IE
> before the pre-punch days, so in that sense the builders were drilling
> thousands of new holes, which had the likely hood of causing large burrs
> to form and be trapped between surfaces, but since the advent of the
> prepunched kit, there is very little additional metal being remove, thus
> there is less likely a burr to form and trap between surfaces.
> With that being said, I do deburr everything, but am wondering if I am
> just "drinking the kool-aid" as it really adds nothing to the structure,
> and if you have a heavy hand might even cause a weaker joint because of
> removed material.
> Here is another one to stir the pot and a proverbial war, do you always
> drill before dimple? If so have you noticed that the hole is actually
> larger after the dimple, causing the rivet to be sloppy in the hole,
> should you just dimple the punched hole, which then accepts a -3 rivet
> without as much slop? I have heard people go both ways on this,
> personally I match drill. The reason I was given to match drill was that
> the punch does not make a clean hole like a drill will. So with that
> being said the reason I ask this is the RV12 will not be match drilled,
> IE the rivet will be put directly in a pre-punched hole, and if it is
> okay for that structure why not for the previous punched kits? It would
> save us a huge amount of time?
> Just thinking through out the day.
> Dan
> N289DT
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: One of the best moves I've made yet - Redux |
I did the same with my local EAA Tech Counseler. Results same as below.
He spent a lot of time encouraging me to see him on a regular basis by
sharing war stories of unairworthy efforts.
Recommend it highly too.
Les Kearney wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> 6 weeks into the build process I have completed Vertical Stab and
> **almost** the elevators, rudders. Today I invited the local DAR over
> for a coffee and an informal review of what I have done to date. At
> this point everything is quirte open and it wa sewasy for him to see
> inside.
>
> I asked for his opinion on the quality of my work to date and if there
> was anything that could be a problem in a formal inmspection. While he
> was looking at my work, I pointed out all the places where I had an
> OOPS and how I fixed it. The bottom line is he was quite pleased with
> my work thus far and I now know that what I am doing is passing
> muster. I may not build a show quality antique classic (to paraphase
> John Cox) but I now know that what I am building will be safe and
> functional.
>
> For those like me, who didnt know what a rivet squeeze looked like 5
> months ago, I recommend getting an expert to review your work befor
> you are too far into the build process. The great thing about having
> DAR do an informal inspection is that their opinion does carry a great
> deal of weight.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les Kearney
>
> RV10 # 40643 - Vertical Stab / Rudder / Elevators in various stages of
> disrepair
>
> Do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Les Kearney [mailto:kearney@shaw.ca]
> *Sent:* Friday, November 17, 2006 9:06 AM
> *To:* 'rv10-list@matronics.com'
> *Subject:* One of the best moves Ive made yet
>
> Hi
>
> Since starting to build a couple of weeks ago, I have limited my work
> to things that I felt I could do without too much risk of error.
> Namely, small fabrication, priming, deburring, drilling, deburring,
> priming. Did I mention deburring?
>
> My plan all along was to advance enough that I could then hire an
> experienced builder for some detailed one on one instruction. I have
> just completed two very full days with this chap and now believe that
> I am well equipped to proceed on my own (at least for now). In October
> I did a two day sheet metal course that gave me the basics on a
> couple of small scale projects a small airfoil section being one.
> It is a bit different when you are looking at a large, very expensive
> vertical stab skin that you have just spent hours prepping. The
> decision to get someone to look over my shoulder and to demonstrate
> [proper technique and what to look for was the best decision I have
> made so far. Heres why:
>
> On Wednesday, I started with dimpling 101. Although I had previously
> dimpled the rudder and vertical stab skins these did not meet the
> standard set by Ralph (my instructor). He demonstrated how to tell if
> the dimples were correctly formed and more importantly, how to correct
> those that werent. After redoing the dimpling, we moved on to
> backrivetting the rudder stiffeners to the skins. At that point we
> departed from the plans and cut an electric trim access panel into the
> rudder skin. Here Ralph demonstrated how to cut access panel holes
> without deforming the skins and getting nice clean edges. If I had
> tried this on my own, I would be buying a new rudder skin by now!
> Before starting we also discussed the location of the trim tab and we
> decided to move it lower on the rudder. We also gave thought to the
> rivet pattern for the doubler and access plate, Ralph suggesting that
> we consider the esthetics of matching the existing rivet pattern when
> placing the doubler and access panel.
>
> Next we tackled the trailing edge of the rudder. Another builder
> suggested using angle aluminum to hold the trailing edge straight
> after the edge wedge was glued in. The problem with this was that the
> edge wedge is a wedge and a cleco will not sit flat on the skin due to
> the angle through the wedge. To compensate I used (temporarily) the
> horizontal stab wedge material to provide a completely flat clecoing
> surface. The cleco went through:
>
> Extra edge wedge (pointing forward)
>
> Rudder edge wedge (point aft of course)
>
> Rudder skin
>
> Angle aluminum
>
> Every hole was clecoed overnight while the glue set. The next morning
> I had a perfectly straight rudder skin and edge wedge.
>
> Thursday morning Ralph showed me how to use a carpenters angle to
> check that the rib flange angles were correct. This would ensure that
> the skins wouldnt pucker due to the rib flanges being bent to far
> in/out. We riveted the trim access panel double and also fabricated a
> cover plate. Here I was shown how to bend the cover plate edges so
> that the plate would sit flat on the doubler (and the corners wouldnt
> turn up).
>
> We then discussed how the trim servo would be mounted and decided we
> could cut the servo cable into the skin as well given that we sorted
> out where the trim tab would be and how great its range of movement
> would be. I cut this hole, finished it and trimmed a rudder cable
> fairing to fit. We riveted it on and then stood back being quite smug
> with our work!
>
> We completed the rudder back riveting and spliced the two sides
> together with op rivets. I then started setting the trailing edge
> rivets with my squeezer. After back riveting the trailing edge, I now
> have a rudder that is al most complete a rudder with an arrow
> straight trailing edge.
>
> Late in the day, we still hadnt bucked any vertical stab rivets. This
> was the last bit of experience I wanted. We setup and Ralph gave me
> a step by step instruction on how to rivet these skins and what to be
> careful of so as not to dent the skins. He spent time on how to hold
> the bucking bar, how to ensure you are on the rivet and how to rivet
> very carefully. He also warned me to not use my mushroom set and to
> get a swivel set. After doing a few rivets, I understand why. Before
> we called it a day, we completed about half of one side of the stab
> skin. Perhaps the hardest part for Ralph was watching me rivet the
> forward center rivets of the skin, perhaps the riskiest of the lot.
> But they came out fine!
>
> There must have been a hundred different thgings Ralh showed me
> including how to use my tools correctly and a few oithes to buy. Most
> importantly, I was able to make a lot of mistakes (not fatal) and was
> shown how to correct them. Also, I learned a great deal about how to
> work with aluminium if nothing else, the rudder trim extra was
> invaluble in this respect.
>
> This may be a bit rambling, but it was a fun couple of days. For any
> one else who has 0, zero, nadda, zilch, zippo experience like I do
> (did), this is a great way to build confidence and acquire skills.
> Unforrttunately spending two weeks a buikld center was impossible and
> in many respects, I believe that this approach was better. I used my
> tools, in my work area and I have an umbilicus to an individual who
> knows me and my project. The cost was also a fraction of the cost of
> build center.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les Kearney
>
> RV10 # 40643 - Vertical Stab / Rudder in various stages of disrepair
>
> Do not archive
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Not about Priming |
Same here. Using #41 bits and reamer.
KiloPapa wrote:
>
> We use a #41 drill bit which allows the rivets to fit a little tighter
> after dimpling and non-dimpled holes take the rivet just fine also.
> I tip I learned from my mentor, Jack Hakes.
>
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: | Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
John G and other - treat yourself to an inexpensive and early Christmas
present. Just spend $9.95 on an Electronic version of the AC43.13-1B and
2A. I got mine in minutes on Saturday by going to www.actechbooks.com
and ordering SKU 1008A from their website. Loads of reading - 798 pages
to be exact.
Try researching Section 8 - Electrical and specifically on page 11-44,
Paragraph 11-96, subparagraph w. Subparagraph w is a new insert since
the older version. Also read on page 11-53 in Paragraph 11-126 on
Flammable fluids. Got my copy in seconds. It's a great reference
material. I gave copies to friends at an RV-10 social. In a nutshell
for the holiday cheapies, 6" separation and electrical routed on top of
the fuel line.
Many solutions to the "tunnel challenge" are buried within. Plus you
will impress your EAA tech advisor and your DAR to boot.
Happy Holidays - whatever floats your seasonal boat.
John Cox
#40600
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: | Not about Priming |
Just so everyone knows, I do not condone nor recommend in any way not
following the builders manual on match drilling and hole prep, and
following the best practices when building an airplane.
Let me stress this, I do match drill, I do de-burr, I do scuff, I do
dimple, I do clean (with Coleman fuel), and I prime (But I am not
telling with what). Then I rivet, and I check every rivet with the
gauge, some people have said that checking everyone is a waste of time,
but as in much of what we do to prep for riveting, it is for our own
piece of mind. I am sure to the best of my ability that it is done
according to acceptable methods and if I have any questions I have a TC,
an A&P, and an IA that come over to verify.
The email about not match drilling was just posting a question, because
I have been told by many different builders there opinion both ways on
this. For me, it was not worth the time savings, much in the same way I
assemble and then match drill, rather than like some that just drill
separate.
Dan
N289DT
-----Original Message-----
From: Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:53 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Not about Priming
They have not updated that section of the manual in a long time, IE
before the pre-punch days, so in that sense the builders were drilling
thousands of new holes, which had the likely hood of causing large burrs
to form and be trapped between surfaces, but since the advent of the
prepunched kit, there is very little additional metal being remove, thus
there is less likely a burr to form and trap between surfaces.
With that being said, I do deburr everything, but am wondering if I am
just "drinking the kool-aid" as it really adds nothing to the structure,
and if you have a heavy hand might even cause a weaker joint because of
removed material.
Here is another one to stir the pot and a proverbial war, do you always
drill before dimple? If so have you noticed that the hole is actually
larger after the dimple, causing the rivet to be sloppy in the hole,
should you just dimple the punched hole, which then accepts a -3 rivet
without as much slop? I have heard people go both ways on this,
personally I match drill. The reason I was given to match drill was that
the punch does not make a clean hole like a drill will. So with that
being said the reason I ask this is the RV12 will not be match drilled,
IE the rivet will be put directly in a pre-punched hole, and if it is
okay for that structure why not for the previous punched kits? It would
save us a huge amount of time?
Just thinking through out the day.
Dan
N289DT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris , Susie
Darcy
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Not about Priming
<VHMUM@bigpond.com>
OK ask Vans!! They say deburr from Ken Kruegar chief engineer Vans!!
Chris 388
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | I0-540 hottest cylinder |
I have installed two Lasar mags on my 10. The controller needs to read the
cylinder head temperature of the hottest running cylinder on the engine. I
am assuming that would be #5 or #6 but don't know which.
What are the flying 10's showing as the hot cylinder ?
I'm wiring firewall forward, and I know if I guess I'll get it wrong :>)
Ted French
RV-10 C-FXCS reserved
firewall forward, some painting done.
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: | Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
Last night while getting into the shower after a hard day at work, I thought
about Tim Olsen....Wait, let me finish.
His comment about this should be fun, "electrical wire runs and fuel lines
in the tunnel." All very valid points, but I also remembered someone
telling me that in most modern cars the fuel pumps are actually inside of
the fuel tanks and the wires run to that pump.
That's what I thought about while getting into the shower. Hope I didn't get
you too excited there Tim.
Damm, now I can't remember, did I use soap????
JOhn G.
Do Not Archive
>From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:38:01 -0800
>
>John G and other - treat yourself to an inexpensive and early Christmas
>present. Just spend $9.95 on an Electronic version of the AC43.13-1B and
>2A. I got mine in minutes on Saturday by going to www.actechbooks.com
>and ordering SKU 1008A from their website. Loads of reading - 798 pages
>to be exact.
>
>Try researching Section 8 - Electrical and specifically on page 11-44,
>Paragraph 11-96, subparagraph w. Subparagraph w is a new insert since
>the older version. Also read on page 11-53 in Paragraph 11-126 on
>Flammable fluids. Got my copy in seconds. It's a great reference
>material. I gave copies to friends at an RV-10 social. In a nutshell
>for the holiday cheapies, 6" separation and electrical routed on top of
>the fuel line.
>
>Many solutions to the "tunnel challenge" are buried within. Plus you
>will impress your EAA tech advisor and your DAR to boot.
>
>Happy Holidays - whatever floats your seasonal boat.
>
>John Cox
>#40600
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: I0-540 hottest cylinder |
My hottest is no. one cylinder.
do not archive
Rob Kermanj
On Dec 14, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Ted French wrote:
>
>
> I have installed two Lasar mags on my 10. The controller needs to
> read the
> cylinder head temperature of the hottest running cylinder on the
> engine. I
> am assuming that would be #5 or #6 but don't know which.
>
> What are the flying 10's showing as the hot cylinder ?
>
> I'm wiring firewall forward, and I know if I guess I'll get it
> wrong :>)
>
>
> Ted French
> RV-10 C-FXCS reserved
> firewall forward, some painting done.
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: I0-540 hottest cylinder |
I think in my case it would be 1 or 2.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Ted French wrote:
>
>
> I have installed two Lasar mags on my 10. The controller needs to read the
> cylinder head temperature of the hottest running cylinder on the engine. I
> am assuming that would be #5 or #6 but don't know which.
>
> What are the flying 10's showing as the hot cylinder ?
>
> I'm wiring firewall forward, and I know if I guess I'll get it wrong :>)
>
>
> Ted French
> RV-10 C-FXCS reserved
> firewall forward, some painting done.
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
John,
These pumps are also submerged is gas and are oxygen deprived.
Do not archive
In a message dated 12/14/06 10:51:39 Eastern Standard Time, indigoonlatigo@msn.com
writes:
His comment about this should be fun, "electrical wire runs and fuel lines
in the tunnel." All very valid points, but I also remembered someone
telling me that in most modern cars the fuel pumps are actually inside of
the fuel tanks and the wires run to that pump.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: I0-540 hottest cylinder |
Tough question Ted - you will not know the answer until you have approximately
50 hours on the aircraft (assuming you have a new/rebuilt engine). You may need
alternations with the air dams in front of cyls 1 & 2 to change the temps around
a bit. My cht's did not settle down for 50 hours. Now my pattern looks like:
330,335,315,315,335,340 during cruise.
Suggest you hook one up to #5 and the other electronic box to #6.
Bill DeRouchey
billderou@yahoo.com
Flying
Ted French <ted_french@telus.net> wrote:
I have installed two Lasar mags on my 10. The controller needs to read the
cylinder head temperature of the hottest running cylinder on the engine. I
am assuming that would be #5 or #6 but don't know which.
What are the flying 10's showing as the hot cylinder ?
I'm wiring firewall forward, and I know if I guess I'll get it wrong :>)
Ted French
RV-10 C-FXCS reserved
firewall forward, some painting done.
---------------------------------
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
John,
Has the FAA taken AC43.13-1b off line? It used to be available for
free download if you had the bandwidth. In fact, it still is at
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99C827DB9BAAC81B86256B4500596C4E?OpenDocument&Highlight=43.13-1b
Or just go to faa.gov and do a search for it.
On 12/14/06, John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
>
>
> John G and other treat yourself to an inexpensive and early Christmas
> present. Just spend $9.95 on an Electronic version of the AC43.13-1B and 2A.
> I got mine in minutes on Saturday by going to www.actechbooks.com and
> ordering SKU 1008A from their website. Loads of reading 798 pages to be
> exact.
>
> Try researching Section 8 Electrical and specifically on page 11-44,
> Paragraph 11-96, subparagraph w. Subparagraph w is a new insert since the
> older version. Also read on page 11-53 in Paragraph 11-126 on Flammable
> fluids. Got my copy in seconds. It's a great reference material. I gave
> copies to friends at an RV-10 social. In a nutshell for the holiday
> cheapies, 6" separation and electrical routed on top of the fuel line.
>
> Many solutions to the "tunnel challenge" are buried within. Plus you will
> impress your EAA tech advisor and your DAR to boot.
>
> Happy Holidays whatever floats your seasonal boat.
>
> John Cox
>
> #40600
>
>
> -- Please Support Your Lists This Month --
> Gifts!)
> Contribution link below to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com
> www.kitlog.com
> Contribution Web Site
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> your generous support!
> Admin.
> - The RV10-List Email Forum -
> to browse
> Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> much more:
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
Negative. These are enclosed fuel lines, enclosed hydraulic lines
(either Skydrol or H-5606 and multiple electrical wire runs within close
proximity to each other. Wiring within another fuel tank is an entirely
separate matter and was addressed in the color PPT presentation that I
sent to Tim's RV-10 site. The phrase "troughs, ducts and conduits" is
found in paragraph a. Within fuel tanks the measurement drops to 2".
All fuel lines pass from fuel cells to there destination of a powerplant
and all aircraft have electrical wire runs in proximity to powerplants
and within airframes. I didn't want to confuse anyone who still reads
my posts with tangent issues.
There is a specific question in the FAA pool asked of applicants for
their A & P Airframe written exam. I don't sleep at Holiday Inn but I
do play one each day while others sleep.
There is value in possessing a personal copy of the AC43.13-1B as well
as the 2A and researching its golden passages.
John Cox
the Turbanator #40600
Do not Archive in respect to Matt's server.
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of NYTerminat
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical
wires
John,
These pumps are also submerged is gas and are oxygen deprived.
Do not archive
In a message dated 12/14/06 10:51:39 Eastern Standard Time,
indigoonlatigo@msn.com writes:
His comment about this should be fun, "electrical wire runs and
fuel lines
in the tunnel." All very valid points, but I also remembered
someone
telling me that in most modern cars the fuel pumps are actually
inside of
the fuel tanks and the wires run to that pump.
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: I0-540 hottest cylinder |
> I have installed two Lasar mags on my 10. The controller needs to read the
> cylinder head temperature of the hottest running cylinder on the engine. I
> am assuming that would be #5 or #6 but don't know which.
> What are the flying 10's showing as the hot cylinder ?
> Ted French
> RV-10 C-FXCS reserved
Ted,
Sounds like you already have your controller, but LASAR is available without
the CHT sensor circuit for experimentals (but is required for certified
installations). The CHT sensor is a known problem area. Once you're flying
if you get faults (red indicator light comes on indicating it has gone into
conventional mag mode) be sure and check the connection on the CHT sensor
wire, it is super sensitive.
What the CHT sensor circuit does is to start retarding the timing if it
senses CHTs over about 425. It is progressive and starts of with a small
retard then increases it if temps go higher. Be sure and have your LASAR
system powered by a switch or breaker switch, there may be times in hot
conditions where you want to do your climbout with it turned off thus
forcing it into conventional mag mode, then turn it back on once you level
off. Any electronic ignition will cause your engine to run hotter since it
is burning the fuel/air charge more completely and efficiently inside the
combustion chamber and thus transferring more heat to the cylinders.
Randy Lervold
RV-3B, almost done (www.rv-3.com)
RV-8, 368 hours & sold (www.rv-8.com)
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
The ACs are available online. So are the FAA A&P Tech Questions but now
who would be going there?
Aircraft Technical Books has just manipulated Adobe Acrobat to provide a
more user friendly pdf version than Uncle Sammy. I can't stand 798 pages
but then I have 200 pounds of books from school in my wife's former
linen closet.
For the most technically adroit or the most frugally challenged, I
understand. I just offered up a "Time is Money" holiday treat and a
teaser to visit their other offerings. Choose your potion of choice for
that Holiday Egg Nog. I'll take something with more octane on my days
off. This is all about sharing information to the betterment of our
fellow builders. Safety First, Safety Today, Safety Always.
Oh Yeh, Tim ... Merry Christmas to you and the entire Olson family and
thank you all for elevating our part of Matt's Reflector World.
John G. - no reference to showers with Tim with or sans soap.
John Cox
the Turbanator #40600
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical
wires
John,
Has the FAA taken AC43.13-1b off line? It used to be available for
free download if you had the bandwidth. In fact, it still is at
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCirc
ular.nsf/0/99C827DB9BAAC81B86256B4500596C4E?OpenDocument&Highlight=43.13
-1b
Or just go to faa.gov and do a search for it.
On 12/14/06, John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
I agree John. I have both loose leave binder copy I made, and a bound
copy I purchased...one for home, one for the hangar, as well as on
disk for my computers, and included in my IA data subscription.
On 12/14/06, John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
>
> The ACs are available online. So are the FAA A&P Tech Questions but now
> who would be going there?
>
> Aircraft Technical Books has just manipulated Adobe Acrobat to provide a
> more user friendly pdf version than Uncle Sammy. I can't stand 798 pages
> but then I have 200 pounds of books from school in my wife's former
> linen closet.
>
> For the most technically adroit or the most frugally challenged, I
> understand. I just offered up a "Time is Money" holiday treat and a
> teaser to visit their other offerings. Choose your potion of choice for
> that Holiday Egg Nog. I'll take something with more octane on my days
> off. This is all about sharing information to the betterment of our
> fellow builders. Safety First, Safety Today, Safety Always.
>
> Oh Yeh, Tim ... Merry Christmas to you and the entire Olson family and
> thank you all for elevating our part of Matt's Reflector World.
>
> John G. - no reference to showers with Tim with or sans soap.
>
> John Cox
> the Turbanator #40600
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
> McMullen
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:10 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical
> wires
>
>
> John,
> Has the FAA taken AC43.13-1b off line? It used to be available for
> free download if you had the bandwidth. In fact, it still is at
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCirc
> ular.nsf/0/99C827DB9BAAC81B86256B4500596C4E?OpenDocument&Highlight=43.13
> -1b
> Or just go to faa.gov and do a search for it.
>
> On 12/14/06, John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: #41 drill bit.. is it really better? |
I know the difference between 40 and 41 in minor but anyone know if we want
a tighter hole? I would think as the rivet expands as it is being squeezed
to the correct length that it would put a slight more pressure on the
smaller hole and possibly create a stress crack? or is smaller really
better?
----- Original Message -----
From: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa@antelecom.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Not about Priming
>
> We use a #41 drill bit which allows the rivets to fit a little tighter
> after dimpling and non-dimpled holes take the rivet just fine also.
> I tip I learned from my mentor, Jack Hakes.
>
> Kevin
> 40494
> tail/empennage
>
> do not archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:53 PM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Not about Priming
>
>
>> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
>
> (snip)
>
> Here is another one to stir the pot and a proverbial war, do you always
>> drill before dimple? If so have you noticed that the hole is actually
>> larger after the dimple, causing the rivet to be sloppy in the hole,
>> should you just dimple the punched hole, which then accepts a -3 rivet
>> without as much slop?
>> Dan
>> N289DT
>
>
>
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: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
Well, you're right that many cars have pumps in the tanks. There's
a couple things though. First, we're talking about the main huge
battery wire here. If that one breaks it's insulation, then nothing
on the main bus works when it shorts. Or more specifically, if it
shorts it'll do huge damage. Then, if it's in close to the fuel
lines, it wouldn't take much for a big boom. Pair that with some
other things, like the fact that even if you don't have a hot tunnel,
there's probably more heat there than anywhere else in the cabin.
Then add the possible interference to the controls. The hurdle of
running the wires through the spar. Then add in that the solenoid
you want to connect to is on the left side of the
firewall, and your battery cable will come out right between
the 2 exhaust stacks, unless you do some other wire gymnastics.
It just doesn't add up to be one of the more fantastic ideas to
put those fat wires in there. For some of the smaller things, like
antenna wires, or some minor things, it isn't such a big deal.
I did find that even trying to come up with a good way to route
the flowscan wires down to the tunnel, it was easier just to
run them down the sides and under the seats, because the
forward tunnel cover and that cut-in area for the oil filter
make routing things a little messy.
Sure, you can give it a shot, but it does pay to study it
close to make sure what you want to do is easy and safe enough.
As far as electricity and fuel goes though, the most terrifying
thing I can imagine is an in-cockpit fire. For that reason
I just hope everyone is very careful to protect their wires
and fuel lines as good as possible.
John G., I'm very relieved to know it wasn't actually thinking
about ME that you were doing. I'm not much of a looker, for
one, but I've just never been one to lean towards soaping
my buddies backs for them. ;)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John Gonzalez wrote:
>
> Last night while getting into the shower after a hard day at work, I
> thought about Tim Olsen....Wait, let me finish.
>
> His comment about this should be fun, "electrical wire runs and fuel
> lines in the tunnel." All very valid points, but I also remembered
> someone telling me that in most modern cars the fuel pumps are actually
> inside of the fuel tanks and the wires run to that pump.
>
> That's what I thought about while getting into the shower. Hope I didn't
> get you too excited there Tim.
>
> Damm, now I can't remember, did I use soap????
>
> JOhn G.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>> From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
>> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:38:01 -0800
>>
>> John G and other - treat yourself to an inexpensive and early Christmas
>> present. Just spend $9.95 on an Electronic version of the AC43.13-1B and
>> 2A. I got mine in minutes on Saturday by going to www.actechbooks.com
>> and ordering SKU 1008A from their website. Loads of reading - 798 pages
>> to be exact.
>>
>> Try researching Section 8 - Electrical and specifically on page 11-44,
>> Paragraph 11-96, subparagraph w. Subparagraph w is a new insert since
>> the older version. Also read on page 11-53 in Paragraph 11-126 on
>> Flammable fluids. Got my copy in seconds. It's a great reference
>> material. I gave copies to friends at an RV-10 social. In a nutshell
>> for the holiday cheapies, 6" separation and electrical routed on top of
>> the fuel line.
>>
>> Many solutions to the "tunnel challenge" are buried within. Plus you
>> will impress your EAA tech advisor and your DAR to boot.
>>
>> Happy Holidays - whatever floats your seasonal boat.
>>
>> John Cox
>> #40600
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
OK so I'm ranting, it's lunch time so here goes.....Ivory soapbox and all
The first step in risk management is hazard identification.
OK so our hazard = metal fuel lines and high amperage electrical conductor in close
proximity.
Second step=Lowering or eliminating the risk of the hazard.
This can be accomplished several ways....the simplistic way is to eliminate the
hazard unless it is not possible...in this case there are many alternative routes
for the electrical wire that it would go against practical thinking to route
it in the tunnel so ELIMINATE the hazard!!
If you had no other option and had to run these two items, the next step is to
engineer a system that would lower the hazard to acceptable levels...this should
not even be a consideration in this situation BUT the AC 43.13 1B, change 1
gives you some options in the form of conduits and proper postioning.
>From day one this book has been in my shop, the binder has worn through and I
need to tape it or replace it...really replace since change 1 is out.
For those that don't have a copy get one, John, myself and many others have preached
for the last almost three years!!
Almost every question asked in this forum regarding fuel lines, electrical, acceptable
metal practices etc. etc. etc. is right inside that book.
I am guessing that many builders have not had the absolute pleasure to work on
aircraft in a structured enviroment, Johns experience in commercial an mine in
the military maybe gives us a slanted or "Nothing less than perfect will do"
attitude.
There is technical data that has to be followed for EVERY task that's performed
on the aircraft. Step by step, aircraft maintenance forms that document every
panel and component removed and replaced along with the required operational
checks afterwards. Quality assurance and supervision inspections and final sign
offs. You get thick skinned because you just finished up an 8 hour auxillary
drive gearbox change and missed safety wiring one bolt that is now almost impossible
to get to. It sucks to make a mistake and have it pointed out so you fix
it with a smile and swear you won't miss THAT again. Those checks and balances
are what makes the safety records what they are today and what yours is going
to be tomorrow
Get yourself a copy of AC 43.13 and mitigate your risk.
It's written in bent sheet metal and blood. Get two copies, one for the shop and
one for the bathroom...really good bathroom book.
Now back to soap sudsing each other up ;)
Rick S.
40185
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
Don't you worry Tim, not all of us Californians are open minded enough to
the idea of getting soaped up in the shower by any one other than the nice
woman that is in one's heart and mind..or just mind.
I got all the information I needed now. Like I said I haven't even built
the tunnel yet but I wanted to know that this was not an option, atleast for
the big stuff.
Thanks,
I hope a few people laughed.
>From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:55:06 -0600
>
>
>Well, you're right that many cars have pumps in the tanks. There's
>a couple things though. First, we're talking about the main huge
>battery wire here. If that one breaks it's insulation, then nothing
>on the main bus works when it shorts. Or more specifically, if it
>shorts it'll do huge damage. Then, if it's in close to the fuel
>lines, it wouldn't take much for a big boom. Pair that with some
>other things, like the fact that even if you don't have a hot tunnel,
>there's probably more heat there than anywhere else in the cabin.
>Then add the possible interference to the controls. The hurdle of
>running the wires through the spar. Then add in that the solenoid
>you want to connect to is on the left side of the
>firewall, and your battery cable will come out right between
>the 2 exhaust stacks, unless you do some other wire gymnastics.
>It just doesn't add up to be one of the more fantastic ideas to
>put those fat wires in there. For some of the smaller things, like
>antenna wires, or some minor things, it isn't such a big deal.
>I did find that even trying to come up with a good way to route
>the flowscan wires down to the tunnel, it was easier just to
>run them down the sides and under the seats, because the
>forward tunnel cover and that cut-in area for the oil filter
>make routing things a little messy.
>
>Sure, you can give it a shot, but it does pay to study it
>close to make sure what you want to do is easy and safe enough.
>As far as electricity and fuel goes though, the most terrifying
>thing I can imagine is an in-cockpit fire. For that reason
>I just hope everyone is very careful to protect their wires
>and fuel lines as good as possible.
>
>John G., I'm very relieved to know it wasn't actually thinking
>about ME that you were doing. I'm not much of a looker, for
>one, but I've just never been one to lean towards soaping
>my buddies backs for them. ;)
>
>Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>do not archive
>
>
>John Gonzalez wrote:
>>
>>Last night while getting into the shower after a hard day at work, I
>>thought about Tim Olsen....Wait, let me finish.
>>
>>His comment about this should be fun, "electrical wire runs and fuel lines
>>in the tunnel." All very valid points, but I also remembered someone
>>telling me that in most modern cars the fuel pumps are actually inside of
>>the fuel tanks and the wires run to that pump.
>>
>>That's what I thought about while getting into the shower. Hope I didn't
>>get you too excited there Tim.
>>
>>Damm, now I can't remember, did I use soap????
>>
>>JOhn G.
>>
>>Do Not Archive
>>
>>
>>>From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>>>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>>>Subject: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
>>>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:38:01 -0800
>>>
>>>John G and other - treat yourself to an inexpensive and early Christmas
>>>present. Just spend $9.95 on an Electronic version of the AC43.13-1B and
>>>2A. I got mine in minutes on Saturday by going to www.actechbooks.com
>>>and ordering SKU 1008A from their website. Loads of reading - 798 pages
>>>to be exact.
>>>
>>>Try researching Section 8 - Electrical and specifically on page 11-44,
>>>Paragraph 11-96, subparagraph w. Subparagraph w is a new insert since
>>>the older version. Also read on page 11-53 in Paragraph 11-126 on
>>>Flammable fluids. Got my copy in seconds. It's a great reference
>>>material. I gave copies to friends at an RV-10 social. In a nutshell
>>>for the holiday cheapies, 6" separation and electrical routed on top of
>>>the fuel line.
>>>
>>>Many solutions to the "tunnel challenge" are buried within. Plus you
>>>will impress your EAA tech advisor and your DAR to boot.
>>>
>>>Happy Holidays - whatever floats your seasonal boat.
>>>
>>>John Cox
>>>#40600
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
Good Rant, Rick!
Another set of books that I found absolutely essential when building my
first airplane, which was plans -built rather than a kit, was the set of
four books by Tony Bingelis, published by the EAA. They are "The
Sportplane Builder", Sportplane Construction Techniques", Firewall
Forward", and "Tony Bingelis on Engines". They are full of must-have
information on how to make aircraft parts, and how to assemble all the
complex subsystems that go into building an airplane. When building my
first plane, I don't know which I used more, the Bingelis books or AC
43.13. The Bingelis books are even better bathroom reading than the AC
book. You can find them at:
http://shop.eaa.org/html/04_books_bingelis.html?cart_id= Even though
these books are geared towards people building planes from scratch, they
have a wealth of info that applies to kits. Tony actually built every
RV that was available before his death, starting with an RV-3, then an
RV-4 and an RV-6. I believe he was working on an RV-8 when he developed
cancer.
Jack Phillips
# 610
Elevators
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical
wires
OK so I'm ranting, it's lunch time so here goes.....Ivory soapbox and
all
The first step in risk management is hazard identification.
OK so our hazard = metal fuel lines and high amperage electrical
conductor in close proximity.
Second step=Lowering or eliminating the risk of the hazard.
This can be accomplished several ways....the simplistic way is to
eliminate the hazard unless it is not possible...in this case there are
many alternative routes for the electrical wire that it would go against
practical thinking to route it in the tunnel so ELIMINATE the hazard!!
If you had no other option and had to run these two items, the next step
is to engineer a system that would lower the hazard to acceptable
levels...this should not even be a consideration in this situation BUT
the AC 43.13 1B, change 1 gives you some options in the form of conduits
and proper postioning.
>From day one this book has been in my shop, the binder has worn
>through and I need to tape it or replace it...really replace since
>change 1 is out.
For those that don't have a copy get one, John, myself and many others
have preached for the last almost three years!!
Almost every question asked in this forum regarding fuel lines,
electrical, acceptable metal practices etc. etc. etc. is right inside
that book.
I am guessing that many builders have not had the absolute pleasure to
work on aircraft in a structured enviroment, Johns experience in
commercial an mine in the military maybe gives us a slanted or "Nothing
less than perfect will do" attitude.
There is technical data that has to be followed for EVERY task that's
performed on the aircraft. Step by step, aircraft maintenance forms that
document every panel and component removed and replaced along with the
required operational checks afterwards. Quality assurance and
supervision inspections and final sign offs. You get thick skinned
because you just finished up an 8 hour auxillary drive gearbox change
and missed safety wiring one bolt that is now almost impossible to get
to. It sucks to make a mistake and have it pointed out so you fix it
with a smile and swear you won't miss THAT again. Those checks and
balances are what makes the safety records what they are today and what
yours is going to be tomorrow
Get yourself a copy of AC 43.13 and mitigate your risk.
It's written in bent sheet metal and blood. Get two copies, one for the
shop and one for the bathroom...really good bathroom book.
Now back to soap sudsing each other up ;)
Rick S.
40185
_
_________________________________________________
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 |
|
In the past there have been many topics discussing the minimum size to build a
10 but I have not seen any discussion as to work tables. Tims site talks about
using an 8 foot and a 4 foot table but no reference to depth. The pictures
look like his were not 48. I suspect 24 or 32.
I hope to be doing my inventory on the Emp kit next weekend and I am trying to
get the work area ready. I already have a 4 x 8 table for general work but for
the construction, it looks like most people are using much less then 48 of depth.
A shallower table allows easier working from both sides.
If I go with a 4 ft and 8 ft table, can I get by with a 24 depth or do I need 32
or even wider?
I am also considering adding a cutout in the 4 foot table for a 'Hand Riveting
and Dimpling Tool' that I can drop in when needed that will allow the aluminum
being worked on to rest on the table at the tools work height. Are others finding
this arangement useful?
--------
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
(N410GB reserved)
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81570#81570
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: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
Hey John,
Last thing on the tunnel is the fuel filter which is a total pain to get to. The
less you have in the way the better. I have a fiberglass console that has my
Com/Nav and audio panel that I have to take out to get in there so it's even
more of a pain. I wish I had thought about relocating that before getting this
far along if that is even a option.
Rick S.
40185
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: Work Table Size |
Gary,
I built two of these and they have been perfect. Add wheels to the bottom with
at least two lockable wheels. It can be one long table like for wings or and "L"
or square shape. They are super strudy and easy to build.
Heres the link to EAA chapter 1000 workbenches:
http://www.eaa1000.av.org/technicl/worktabl/worktabl.htm
Rick S.
40185
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 |
|
Gary
I built 2 EAA regulation tables per the plans located at : http://www.eaa1000.av.org/technicl/worktabl/tablefig.htm
FWIW, I very much like these tables. They are easy to build and very nice to work
on. When I need to, I can put them back to back or end to end. The depth is
perfect for the tail kit. As you mentioned, access to either side without reaching
is a big plus.
I did deviate from tbe EAA plans in two respects. First, I cut the legs down so
I could put on fully castoring wheels (two of them with locks). As I am in a
fairly small space, this is a big plus. I also used MDF for the table top and
shelf. It is soft, forgiving and smooth. It doesn't trap burrs etc to scratch
skins.
Another trick was to put a soft foam mesh mat (used to line drawers etc) on the
table tops. The mesh holds work in place and also helps prevent dents from moving
pieces around on the table. The mesh also allows burrs etc to fall into the
mesh and away from the skins. Periodically I just shake the mesh out on the
floor.
A couple of days ago I also built two 18" by 36" tables (also on wheels) upon which
I mounted my power tools (bandsaw, vise and grinder on one and drill press
and belt sander on another). As these are easily movable, they will likely be
quite handy.
Anyway, based on my experience, you can't go wrong with the EAA tables.
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 orchidman
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:26 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Work Table Size
In the past there have been many topics discussing the minimum size to build a
10 but I have not seen any discussion as to work tables. Tims site talks about
using an 8 foot and a 4 foot table but no reference to depth. The pictures
look like his were not 48. I suspect 24 or 32.
I hope to be doing my inventory on the Emp kit next weekend and I am trying to
get the work area ready. I already have a 4 x 8 table for general work but for
the construction, it looks like most people are using much less then 48 of depth.
A shallower table allows easier working from both sides.
If I go with a 4 ft and 8 ft table, can I get by with a 24 depth or do I need 32
or even wider?
I am also considering adding a cutout in the 4 foot table for a 'Hand Riveting
and Dimpling Tool' that I can drop in when needed that will allow the aluminum
being worked on to rest on the table at the tools work height. Are others finding
this arangement useful?
--------
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
(N410GB reserved)
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81570#81570
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Work Table Size |
Hi orchidman=0A=0AWelcome the the RV10 building world.=0A=0AI have used two
8ft by 2 ft tables. Built similarly to those in the EAA site. They work
ed great. A 32 inch table should work great also but I wouldn't go any wid
er than that. I used a 2ft depth because I slit a 4x8 plywood sheet in the
middle for the two table tops. A more important item might be table heig
ht. You don't want to have to bend down for a long period of time while wo
rking on your kit.=0A=0AHappy building=0A=0ANiko=0A40188=0A=0A=0A----- Orig
inal Message ----=0AFrom: orchidman <gary@wingscc.com>=0ATo: rv10-list@matr
onics.com=0ASent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 4:25:30 PM=0ASubject: RV10-Li
ary@wingscc.com>=0A=0AIn the past there have been many topics discussing th
e minimum size to build a 10 but I have not seen any discussion as to work
tables. Tim=99s site talks about using an 8 foot and a 4 foot table
but no reference to depth. The pictures look like his were not 48 .
I suspect 24 or 32 .=0AI hope to be doing my inventory on the
Emp kit next weekend and I am trying to get the work area ready. I alread
y have a 4 x 8 table for general work but for the construction, it looks li
ke most people are using much less then 48 of depth. A shallower ta
ble allows easier working from both sides.=0AIf I go with a 4 ft and 8 ft t
able, can I get by with a 24 depth or do I need 32 or even wi
der?=0AI am also considering adding a cutout in the 4 foot table for a 'Han
d Riveting and Dimpling Tool' that I can drop in when needed that will allo
w the aluminum being worked on to rest on the table at the tools work heigh
t. Are others finding this arangement useful?=0A=0A--------=0AGary Blanken
biller=0ARV10 - # 40674=0A(N410GB reserved)=0Ado not archive=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
Read this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php
=========================0A
============
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 |
|
| Subject: | Garmin 496 - IFR? |
I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The Garmin Web
page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
Here is the response from Garmin as to why:
"The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no intentions to certify
a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go with a TSO-129 certified box
if you want to an IFR GPS."
Hmmm. That really stinks!
So does that mean no /G filing?
Jim C
N312F
Finishing
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Work Table Size |
Rick S. wrote:
> Gary,
>
> I built two of these and they have been perfect. Add wheels to the bottom with
at least two lockable wheels. It can be one long table like for wings or and
"L" or square shape. They are super strudy and easy to build.
>
> Heres the link to EAA chapter 1000 workbenches:
>
> http://www.eaa1000.av.org/technicl/worktabl/worktabl.htm
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
Rick,
Your link followed to the plans only shows the 24" deep tables, while the link
on Tim's page also shows 24 and 32" deep tables. I can build either but 24" would
work better for me if that is sufficient for building the Emp and most of
the long work on the wings.
Were your tables 24" on the narrow side? Lengths seem to be commonly mentioned
but people forget to mention the narrow dimention.
--------
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
(N410GB reserved)
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81587#81587
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: #41 drill bit.. is it really better? |
I don't have any specific data but slightly more pressure is probably good.
It sets up a tensile residual stress field around the hole which helps wi
th fatigue life. Now I don't know this for a fact as far as rivets go, how
ever, with bolts, we normally use interference fit fasteners if we need to
improve the fatigue life of a part just for that reason. Its based on the
principle that if you take a piece of metal and overload it in tension then
its fatigue life will improve assuming that the fatigue loading is lower.
Don't try this on your airplane because if you really load it in compressi
on it will have the opposite effect. Such a case would be a really hard la
nding with full fuel where the lower skin/ spar cap will be in compression.
That would set up a compressive residual stress and reduce the fatigue li
fe of the skin/ lower spar cap. =0A=0AI don't know but I might have told y
ou more than you were interested in knowing.=0A=0Ahappy building=0A=0ANiko
=0A40188=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Pascal <rv10builder@ve
rizon.net>=0ATo: rv10-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Thursday, December 14, 200
6 1:34:04 PM=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List: #41 drill bit.. is it really better?
>=0A=0AI know the difference between 40 and 41 in minor but anyone know if
we want =0Aa tighter hole? I would think as the rivet expands as it is bein
g squeezed =0Ato the correct length that it would put a slight more pressur
e on the =0Asmaller hole and possibly create a stress crack? or is smaller
really =0Abetter?=0A=0A----- Original Message ----- =0AFrom: "KiloPapa" <ki
lopapa@antelecom.net>=0ATo: <rv10-list@matronics.com>=0ASent: Wednesday, De
cember 13, 2006 9:36 PM=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List: Not about Priming=0A=0A
=0A>=0A> We use a #41 drill bit which allows the rivets to fit a little tig
hter =0A> after dimpling and non-dimpled holes take the rivet just fine als
o.=0A> I tip I learned from my mentor, Jack Hakes.=0A>=0A> Kevin=0A> 40494
=0A> tail/empennage=0A>=0A> do not archive=0A> ----- Original Message -----
=0A> From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>=0A> To: <rv10-list@ma
tronics.com>=0A> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:53 PM=0A> Subject: RE
: RV10-List: Not about Priming=0A>=0A>=0A>> --> RV10-List message posted by
: "Lloyd, Daniel R." =0A>> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>=0A>=0A> (snip)=0A>=0A>
Here is another one to stir the pot and a proverbial war, do you always=0A>
> drill before dimple? If so have you noticed that the hole is actually=0A>
> larger after the dimple, causing the rivet to be sloppy in the hole,=0A>>
should you just dimple the punched hole, which then accepts a -3 rivet=0A>
> without as much slop?=0A>> Dan=0A>> N289DT=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> =0A=0A
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? |
Put "VFR GPS" in the comments box... ATC will help you out.
-Jim
jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>
>I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The Garmin Web
page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
>
>Here is the response from Garmin as to why:
>
>"The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no intentions to certify
a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go with a TSO-129 certified box
if you want to an IFR GPS."
>
>Hmmm. That really stinks!
>
>So does that mean no /G filing?
>
>Jim C
>N312F
>Finishing
>
>
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Work Table Size |
owl40188(at)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I have used two 8ft by 2 ft tables. Built similarly to those in the EAA site.
They worked great. A 32 inch table should work great also but I wouldn't
go any wider than that. I used a 2ft depth because I slit a 4x8 plywood sheet
in the middle for the two table tops. A more important item might be table
height. You don't want to have to bend down for a long period of time while working
on your kit.
>
> Niko
> 40188-
Thanks, It looks like my problems are because of Tim! Can I blame him :D
The plans he has on his site show both 24" and 32" and this is what I was questioning.
Which is best for the 10.
Eveyone that has replied so far has referenced the plans from what looks like the
same group of people but only has the 24" size. No reference to 32" wide.
It is looking like 24" is winning. This is what I needed to know so I can build
them this weekend.
--------
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
(N410GB reserved)
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81590#81590
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
Sorry to inform you John, and a bonus for those "holiday cheapies"
<http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99C827DB9BAAC81B86256B4500596C4E?OpenDocument>
Here is the link to AC 43.13-1B including change 1 all chapters as
acrobat pdf, and all for free.
Or <http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/> for all sorts of aircraft information.
Our taxes at work.
Larry
#356
John W. Cox wrote:
>
> John G and other treat yourself to an inexpensive and early
> Christmas present. Just spend $9.95 on an Electronic version of the
> AC43.13-1B and 2A. I got mine in minutes on Saturday by going to
> _www.actechbooks.com_ <http://www.actechbooks.com> and ordering SKU
> 1008A from their website. Loads of reading 798 pages to be exact.
>
> Try researching Section 8 Electrical and specifically on page 11-44,
> Paragraph 11-96, subparagraph w. Subparagraph w is a new insert since
> the older version. Also read on page 11-53 in Paragraph 11-126 on
> Flammable fluids. Got my copy in seconds. Its a great reference
> material. I gave copies to friends at an RV-10 social. In a nutshell
> for the holiday cheapies, 6 separation and electrical routed on top
> of the fuel line.
>
> Many solutions to the tunnel challenge are buried within. Plus you
> will impress your EAA tech advisor and your DAR to boot.
>
> Happy Holidays whatever floats your seasonal boat.
>
> John Cox
>
> #40600
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: | Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Jim and others,
I am also planning on putting a Garmin GPS into a panel dock. I was
wondering on where you were going to put/mount the antenna? With the
freedom we experimental builders have it sure would make sense to
somehow mount the antenna under the cowl or canopy and not just have it
sitting on the glare shield.
Larry
#356
James Hein wrote:
>
> Put "VFR GPS" in the comments box... ATC will help you out.
>
> -Jim
>
> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>
>>
>> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The
>> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
>>
>> Here is the response from Garmin as to why:
>>
>> "The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no
>> intentions to certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go
>> with a TSO-129 certified box if you want to an IFR GPS."
>>
>> Hmmm. That really stinks!
>>
>> So does that mean no /G filing?
>>
>> Jim C
>> N312F
>> Finishing
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
Sorry, did not see the rest of the emails. Late to the punch.
Do not archive
Larry
Larry Rosen wrote:
>
> Sorry to inform you John, and a bonus for those "holiday cheapies"
> <http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99C827DB9BAAC81B86256B4500596C4E?OpenDocument>
>
>
> Here is the link to AC 43.13-1B including change 1 all chapters as
> acrobat pdf, and all for free.
> Or <http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/> for all sorts of aircraft information.
> Our taxes at work.
>
> Larry
> #356
>
>
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 |
|
Gary,
I just finished my workshop which is in a two car garage and I put two workbenches,
one was 10x3x38" high(this is my main bench) and I also have a 8x3x38" high(I
have a belt sander, vise and grinder on this). This seems to be sufficient.
I didn't go with 4' wide because both benches are up against a wall and it
seemed a stretch to reach across. If your bench will be in the middle of the floor
and you have access to both sides then 4' wide should be good.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of orchidman
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 4:26 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Work Table Size
In the past there have been many topics discussing the minimum size to build a
10 but I have not seen any discussion as to work tables. Tims site talks about
using an 8 foot and a 4 foot table but no reference to depth. The pictures
look like his were not 48. I suspect 24 or 32.
I hope to be doing my inventory on the Emp kit next weekend and I am trying to
get the work area ready. I already have a 4 x 8 table for general work but for
the construction, it looks like most people are using much less then 48 of depth.
A shallower table allows easier working from both sides.
If I go with a 4 ft and 8 ft table, can I get by with a 24 depth or do I need 32
or even wider?
I am also considering adding a cutout in the 4 foot table for a 'Hand Riveting
and Dimpling Tool' that I can drop in when needed that will allow the aluminum
being worked on to rest on the table at the tools work height. Are others finding
this arangement useful?
--------
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
(N410GB reserved)
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81570#81570
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: #41 drill bit.. is it really better? |
For what it's worth, I've used a #40 ream where both holes were
already pre-punched and a 41 bit followed by a 40 ream when they
weren't. In the brief discussions I've had with Vans about this
topic, I get the sense that they find it amusing that the builders
get so wrapped up in this kind of detail. They really just want us
to drill to #40, and dimple... just like they call out in the plans.
If they wanted us to do something different, they would have said it.
I've been down this road, and it leads to "just build the plane."
Jeff Carpenter
40304
On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:20 PM, Niko wrote:
> I don't have any specific data but slightly more pressure is
> probably good. It sets up a tensile residual stress field around
> the hole which helps with fatigue life. Now I don't know this for
> a fact as far as rivets go, however, with bolts, we normally use
> interference fit fasteners if we need to improve the fatigue life
> of a part just for that reason. Its based on the principle that if
> you take a piece of metal and overload it in tension then its
> fatigue life will improve assuming that the fatigue loading is
> lower. Don't try this on your airplane because if you really load
> it in compression it will have the opposite effect. Such a case
> would be a really hard landing with full fuel where the lower skin/
> spar cap will be in compression. That would set up a compressive
> residual stress and reduce the fatigue life of the skin/ lower spar
> cap.
>
> I don't know but I might have told you more than you were
> interested in knowing.
>
> happy building
>
> Niko
> 40188
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Pascal <rv10builder@verizon.net>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:34:04 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: #41 drill bit.. is it really better?
>
>
> I know the difference between 40 and 41 in minor but anyone know if
> we want
> a tighter hole? I would think as the rivet expands as it is being
> squeezed
> to the correct length that it would put a slight more pressure on the
> smaller hole and possibly create a stress crack? or is smaller really
> better?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa@antelecom.net>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:36 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Not about Priming
>
>
> >
> > We use a #41 drill bit which allows the rivets to fit a little
> tighter
> > after dimpling and non-dimpled holes take the rivet just fine also.
> > I tip I learned from my mentor, Jack Hakes.
> >
> > Kevin
> > 40494
> > tail/empennage
> >
> > do not archive
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
> > To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:53 PM
> > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Not about Priming
> >
> >
> >> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > Here is another one to stir the pot and a proverbial war, do
> you always
> >> drill before dimple? If so have you noticed that the hole is
> actually
> >> larger after the dimple, causing the rivet to be sloppy in the
> hole,
> >> should you just dimple the punched hole, which then accepts a -3
> rivet
> >> without as much slop?
> >> Dan
> >> N289DT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > = (And Get Sobsp; * AeroElectric
> www.kitlog.www.homebuilthelp.com/" tp://www.matronics.com/
> contribution" target=_blank>http://
> www.matronics.cnbsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.?
> RV10-List" ========
>
> ============================================================ _-
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List_-
> ===========================================================
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Work Table Size |
I used a solid core door for the top of my bench (I have 2) so it is 30"
deep. I modified the eaa plans to accommodate the door depth. I did
leave about 1/2" lip around the perimeter. If I were to do it again I
would leave at least 1". It would make it easier to clamp to. Since
the door top is heavy I have yet to fasten it to the to the leg
structure. This allows me to slide the door around to make a larger
lip. It also gets slid to the side so my dimpler can sit on the support
structure and the door top is about flat with the dimple.
photos are here
<http://lrosen.nerv10.com/Construct/tools/Workshop/index.html>
Larry
#356
orchidman wrote:
>
>
> Rick S. wrote:
>
>> Gary,
>>
>> I built two of these and they have been perfect. Add wheels to the bottom with
at least two lockable wheels. It can be one long table like for wings or and
"L" or square shape. They are super strudy and easy to build.
>>
>> Heres the link to EAA chapter 1000 workbenches:
>>
>> http://www.eaa1000.av.org/technicl/worktabl/worktabl.htm
>>
>> Rick S.
>> 40185
>>
>
> Rick,
> Your link followed to the plans only shows the 24" deep tables, while the link
on Tim's page also shows 24 and 32" deep tables. I can build either but 24"
would work better for me if that is sufficient for building the Emp and most
of the long work on the wings.
>
> Were your tables 24" on the narrow side? Lengths seem to be commonly mentioned
but people forget to mention the narrow dimention.
>
> --------
> Gary Blankenbiller
> RV10 - # 40674
> (N410GB reserved)
> do not archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81587#81587
>
>
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Garmin 496 - IFR? |
Without an IFR GPS such as the Garmin 430, you would probably not want to
fly hard IFR based on just the 496. There are, however, a number of other
less expensive IFR GPSs that would be your official instrument and then you
could fly the 496. It is a great backup/supplement, but I would not bet my
life on something like that unless I had sufficient IFR backups.
Technically I have not idea if that would be accepted or not. It seems to
be fairly unclear about non-certified avionics being used for IFR flying in
an experimental, but the chances of them finding out that you filed /G with
just a 496 is almost negative anyway (unless your e-mail is archived, of
course). SYMBOL 74 \f "Wingdings" \s 10
Just IMHO. 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 jim@CombsFive.Com
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:14 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Garmin 496 - IFR?
I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The Garmin
Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
Here is the response from Garmin as to why:
"The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no intentions to
certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go with a TSO-129
certified box if you want to an IFR GPS."
Hmmm. That really stinks!
So does that mean no /G filing?
Jim C
N312F
Finishing
--
6:13 PM
--
6:13 PM
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: | Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Here's my hidden mount on N416EC. I don't think there has ever been a
problem with reception in 92 hours on the Hobbs.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Rosen
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Jim and others,
I am also planning on putting a Garmin GPS into a panel dock. I was
wondering on where you were going to put/mount the antenna? With the
freedom we experimental builders have it sure would make sense to
somehow mount the antenna under the cowl or canopy and not just have it
sitting on the glare shield.
Larry
#356
James Hein wrote:
>
> Put "VFR GPS" in the comments box... ATC will help you out.
>
> -Jim
>
> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>
>>
>> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The
>> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
>>
>> Here is the response from Garmin as to why:
>>
>> "The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no
>> intentions to certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go
>> with a TSO-129 certified box if you want to an IFR GPS."
>>
>> Hmmm. That really stinks!
>>
>> So does that mean no /G filing?
>>
>> Jim C
>> N312F
>> Finishing
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
6:13 PM
--
6:13 PM
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: Garmin 496 - IFR? |
Thanks,
Jim C
Do not archive
===========================================================
From: James Hein <n8vim@arrl.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 - IFR?
Put "VFR GPS" in the comments box... ATC will help you out.
-Jim
jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>
>I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The Garmin Web
page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
>
>Here is the response from Garmin as to why:
>
>"The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no intentions to certify
a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go with a TSO-129 certified box
if you want to an IFR GPS."
>
>Hmmm. That really stinks!
>
>So does that mean no /G filing?
>
>Jim C
>N312F
>Finishing
>
>
>
>
===========================================================
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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
I had heard that some have mounted it out in front of the firewall at the top just
behind the engine. I do not have the unit yet and have not actually thought
too much about it. I don't mind putting it on the top of the Instrument panel
(I think!). I may change my mind after seeing it.
Jim C
N312F
Do not archive
===========================================================
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Subject: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Jim and others,
I am also planning on putting a Garmin GPS into a panel dock. I was
wondering on where you were going to put/mount the antenna? With the
freedom we experimental builders have it sure would make sense to
somehow mount the antenna under the cowl or canopy and not just have it
sitting on the glare shield.
Larry
#356
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: | Re: Work Table Size |
I made my table out of all the materials that they used to crate the empennage
kit, with the exception of the legs which I just pulled out some scrap 4x4. I
doubled up the plywood, ripped the 1x material into stiffeners, and added a shelf.
The best part for me is the the 1x4 stiffener that says "High Dollar Aircraft
Parts - This Side Up" upside down. :) Having a high table really helps.
Routering in a place for the steel plate for back riveting also works well
for us.
What I'm envious of: a buddy who does custom steel and metal fabrication work (also
a pilot) has a 4x4 steel table with a hydraulic lift to raise and lower his
work to the most comfortable height. I think something like that would really
be the cat's meow.
Jon Reining
41514 (with my dad Bill - and occasional emotional support from my wife Christy
- who also reads the list emails)
Tailcone - interrupted - while house is being remodeled and parents are moving
:(
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81608#81608
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Work Table Size |
Yes, you can blame me. I took those plans and did some calculations to
efficiently allow them to be built either to 24" or 32". In my case,
I'm glad I had 32", but it really is just a personal preference. I had
no problem laying a wing on it, and since I didn't solid-mount my
C-Frame dimpler, I found the width to be a great help. In addition, you
end up getting lots and lots of supplies on the table sometimes, and
having the extra width can be a good thing. 32" was not at all too
wide to work comfortably on both sides of RV-10 parts.
That said, if you're space limited, or prefer skinny tables, then 24"
might be just the ticket. It's just personal preference.
Some people liked theirs moveable with rollers. I preferred mine to
be super solid heavy and unyielding. I really is no big deal either
way, and often could be dependent on the rest of your shop. If I had
unlimited space, I'd have had a couple more of the ones Like I have,
and scattered them around a bit. One thing for sure, when you get
yourself a good sturdy set of tables, you'll find building to go
smoother. Also, it was handy having a top that you didn't mind drilling
into, or painting.
One other thing I found infinitely helpful was an overhead pipe system
with air outlets every few feet, and a few 5 to 10' air hoses. It's
nice sometimes to just have a little piece of hose hanging down so
it isn't in the way while you drill, and really beats tripping over
a 25' hose on the ground.
So yep, I confused the issue by giving 2 options for the standard
EAA Plans. Sucks to have options, doesn't it.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
orchidman wrote:
>
>
> owl40188(at)yahoo.com wrote:
>> I have used two 8ft by 2 ft tables. Built similarly to those in
>> the EAA site. They worked great. A 32 inch table should work
>> great also but I wouldn't go any wider than that. I used a 2ft
>> depth because I slit a 4x8 plywood sheet in the middle for the two
>> table tops. A more important item might be table height. You
>> don't want to have to bend down for a long period of time while
>> working on your kit.
>>
>> Niko 40188-
>
> Thanks, It looks like my problems are because of Tim! Can I blame
> him :D
>
> The plans he has on his site show both 24" and 32" and this is what I
> was questioning. Which is best for the 10. Eveyone that has replied
> so far has referenced the plans from what looks like the same group
> of people but only has the 24" size. No reference to 32" wide. It is
> looking like 24" is winning. This is what I needed to know so I can
> build them this weekend.
>
> -------- Gary Blankenbiller RV10 - # 40674 (N410GB reserved) do not
> archive
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81590#81590
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Jesse,
Excellent! I like that mount!
I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get flying. I think
the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the flight plan is the way
to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides a cost effective panel in the airplane.
Jim C
Do not archive
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Work Table Size |
I built the 24 inch wide EAA tables, but for the top, I made it 2" wider al
l
around, and that has worked really well for clamping things to the table.
Another consideration is that may have to move these through doors at some
point, like I did when I moved about a year and a half ago. If my table ha
d
been any wider than 28", I would have had a very hard time moving it from o
ne
house to the other.
Steve Weinstock
40230
Yes, you can blame me. I took those plans and did some calculations to
efficiently allow them to be built either to 24" or 32". In my case,
I'm glad I had 32", but it really is just a personal preference. I had
no problem laying a wing on it, and since I didn't solid-mount my
C-Frame dimpler, I found the width to be a great help. In addition, you
end up getting lots and lots of supplies on the table sometimes, and
having the extra width can be a good thing. 32" was not at all too
wide to work comfortably on both sides of RV-10 parts.
That said, if you're space limited, or prefer skinny tables, then 24"
might be just the ticket. It's just personal preference.
Some people liked theirs moveable with rollers. I preferred mine to
be super solid heavy and unyielding. I really is no big deal either
way, and often could be dependent on the rest of your shop. If I had
unlimited space, I'd have had a couple more of the ones Like I have,
and scattered them around a bit. One thing for sure, when you get
yourself a good sturdy set of tables, you'll find building to go
smoother. Also, it was handy having a top that you didn't mind drilling
into, or painting.
One other thing I found infinitely helpful was an overhead pipe system
with air outlets every few feet, and a few 5 to 10' air hoses. It's
nice sometimes to just have a little piece of hose hanging down so
it isn't in the way while you drill, and really beats tripping over
a 25' hose on the ground.
So yep, I confused the issue by giving 2 options for the standard
EAA Plans. Sucks to have options, doesn't it.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
orchidman wrote:
>
>
> owl40188(at)yahoo.com wrote:
>> I have used two 8ft by 2 ft tables. Built similarly to those in
>> the EAA site. They worked great. A 32 inch table should work
>> great also but I wouldn't go any wider than that. I used a 2ft
>> depth because I slit a 4x8 plywood sheet in the middle for the two
>> table tops. A more important item might be table height.=EF=BD You
>> don't want to have to bend down for a long period of time while
>> working on your kit.
>>
>> Niko 40188-
>
> Thanks, It looks like my problems are because of Tim! Can I blame
> him :D
>
> The plans he has on his site show both 24" and 32" and this is what I
> was questioning. Which is best for the 10. Eveyone that has replied
> so far has referenced the plans from what looks like the same group
> of people but only has the 24" size. No reference to 32" wide. It is
> looking like 24" is winning. This is what I needed to know so I can
> build them this weekend.
>
> -------- Gary Blankenbiller RV10 - # 40674 (N410GB reserved) do not
> archive
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81590#81590
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
to actually get there safely.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Excellent! I like that mount!
>
> I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
> flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the
> flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides
> a cost effective panel in the airplane.
>
> Jim C
>
> Do not archive
>
>
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: | Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Amen
On 12/14/06, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
> planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
> believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
> panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
> rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
> when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
> not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
> some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
> spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
> It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
> to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
> to actually get there safely.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
> >
> > Jesse,
> >
> > Excellent! I like that mount!
> >
> > I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
> > flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the
> > flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides
> > a cost effective panel in the airplane.
> >
> > Jim C
> >
> > Do not archive
> >
> >
>
>
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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
>> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The
>> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
Jim,
What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR certified?
Let's see:
1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable system configuration?
2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000
While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements for
TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet these
requirements-yes ever is a long time. That being said, I too will have a portable
496/596(?) IN my panel with the antenna mounted on the glare shield. It
will sit right below an IFR certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx
you still would be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation,
however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able
to file /G.
By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the WAAS
certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's 129 box
like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took Garmin so long to get
WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530.
GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below:
http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf
http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf
http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
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: | Re: Work Table Size |
Tim(at)MyRV10.com wrote:
> Yes, you can blame me. I took those plans and did some calculations to
> efficiently allow them to be built either to 24" or 32". In my case,
> I'm glad I had 32", but it really is just a personal preference.
>
> So yep, I confused the issue by giving 2 options for the standard
> EAA Plans. Sucks to have options, doesn't it.
>
It sure does [Laughing]
Isn't life great!
So it sounds like 24" will work but if you can go 4" to 8" wider is even better.
--------
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
(N410GB reserved)
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81632#81632
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: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
The Garmin decison to reduce the TSO on the 480 sounds like a marketing
decision to me. Perhaps someday Garmin will go the way of King which
they so heartliy disliked.
----- Original Message -----
From: W. Curtis
To: RV10-List@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The
>> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
Jim,
What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT
IFR certified?
Let's see:
1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable
system configuration?
2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000
While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the
requirements for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no
portable will EVER meet these requirements-yes ever is a long time. That
being said, I too will have a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with the
antenna mounted on the glare shield. It will sit right below an IFR
certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx you still would
be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation,
however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able
to file /G.
By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has
reduced the WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to
a lowly TSO's 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains
what took Garmin so long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530.
GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below:
http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf
http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf
http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? |
I would like to comment about the use of a panel dock and a 296/396/496, I
originally thought it was a great idea, until I installed one in my 182. I
really like the 396 and when it was on the yoke it was used as my primary
VFR navigation. (instead of the garmin 430) When it is mounted in the panel
it can be hard and frustating to use the "rocker" button, particularly in
turbulance. The "rocker" button is used in many of the navigation functions
and in almost all of the weather functions. I will be mounting the 396 in
the RV10 on an E mount protruding from the panel, directly above the
stick.The airplane will also have the 430, SL30, Grand Rapids 3 screen, but
for local VFR flying, its hard to beat the 396/496.
----- Original Message -----
From: <jim@CombsFive.Com>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:13 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Garmin 496 - IFR?
>
> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The
> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
>
> Here is the response from Garmin as to why:
>
> "The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no intentions to
> certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go with a TSO-129
> certified box if you want to an IFR GPS."
>
> Hmmm. That really stinks!
>
> So does that mean no /G filing?
>
> Jim C
> N312F
> Finishing
>
>
>
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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Excellent point! While that seems so obvious, It does need to be said. It's right
up there with measure twice, cut once.
My plans for the panel include the AF-3500 EFIS / Engine monitor, Garmin 496 MAP/GPS,
SL30 Nav/Com, Garmin 327 Transponder, AP and PE 7000B audio panel.
Thats way more function / capability that I have now in a CAP Cessna 182.
Layout / use however are clearly major points for discussion.
Dang, I hate it when you are right! I need to go do some work with some IFR rated
pilots to make sure I get this right the first time around.
Thanks, Jim C
N312F
===========================================================
From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
to actually get there safely.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Excellent! I like that mount!
>
> I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
> flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the
> flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides
> a cost effective panel in the airplane.
>
> Jim C
>
> Do not archive
>
>
===========================================================
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV 10 designation with FAA |
For those interested, I sent the following to van's today (might help if you
also prodded them)
Grumpy #40404
Vans,
While working with FltPlan.com in trying to build my RV 10 (#40404) database,
and from which I file flight plans with the FAA, the RV-10 is not included as
an identified model in Section 5 (page 5-1-82) of the FAA Order 7340.1Y. It
lists RV models 3 through 9 only.
Paragraph 1-3-3 (page 1-3-1) provides instructions on how to request an
aircraft-type designator be added to the approved identifiers.
All of us RV 10 fliers (and those to fly later) would appreciate it if Van's
would request that the -10 be added to FAA's list.
Thanks - John Miller
#40404 with 40 hrs and counting!!
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: | Deperately seeking opinions - (well maybe urgently seeking |
)
IMHO the attached pictures show an ideal time/place/way to install the
fairings. Any time after this could work also, but it is nice to get them
out of the way early.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Deperately seeking opinions - (well maybe urgently
seeking )
Well, the fairings attach to the gear legs, so sure, they change too.
On Page 48-4 Step 5 "Raise the airplane on jacks...."
So you do indeed jack the plane to do the fairings, and then you align
them along their "roll" axis so they align with the tire tread.
Then in future steps, you do the alignment just as you say, with
the weight off the gear. That way if there is any change in toe due
to the weight, you don't have to worry about it in flight. Nobody
cares if they're a little off on the ground, but in flight you'd
want them very very close.
So yep, do it without the weight on them. They just make that one
mention above on 48-4, but from that point on, the alignment is all
with weight off.
Note: This is one reason that most builders will want to consider
making up a pair of jackstands like I did on my tips page, because
you'll want them for when you get to the fairings if you have
the wings installed, and the jackstands are also extremely helpful
for other maintenance down the road. I just used them for
flipping my tires.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Page 48-4 Step 5 "Raise the airplane on jacks...."
KiloPapa wrote:
>
> I know they spread but I meant does the alignment of the fairings change
> (in regards to the centerline of the plane) with and without weight on
> them?
> If the alignment changes in reference to the centerline of the plane it
> might be best to align the fairings with the weight off the gear.
>
> Kevin
> 40494
> tail/empennage
>
> do not archive
>
>>
>> Absolutely. It spreads as you put weight on them.
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> KiloPapa wrote:
>>>
>>> Does the geometry of the gear legs change with the full weight of the
>>> airplane on them and suspended as in flight?
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>> 40494
>>> tail/empennage
>>>
>>> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
12:53 PM
--
6:13 PM
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: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
It is interesting that when you read the bulletins, which I've seen
a while back, that there are some inconsistencies. For one, depending
on which one you read, one says that you will still be able to fly
LPV approaches, and the other talks about needing alternate equipment
and so on. And, it does state that the "problem" is basically in
how the equipment matched up to a technical specification, not something
that they saw failures in the field over. It's been a popular and
proven box, so it's hard to be shaken too hard over a technicality, even
if it does (or doesn't) truly limit the functionality until they come
out with a "fix". Not too many months ago, I did get the latest
software rev v2.1, and they told me that there are always
updates in the works. It will be interesting to see how they evolve
the 480 now that the 430/530's will have WAAS...especially when those
new models came out at even more obscene pricepoints.
Tim Olson - (with an "on", not an "en" as is being commonly written
these days)
do not archive
David McNeill wrote:
> The Garmin decison to reduce the TSO on the 480 sounds like a marketing
> decision to me. Perhaps someday Garmin will go the way of King which
> they so heartliy disliked.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* W. Curtis <mailto:wcurtis@core.com>
> *To:* RV10-List@matronics.com <mailto:RV10-List@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:32 PM
> *Subject:* RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>
> >> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The
> >> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
>
> Jim,
>
> What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is
> NOT IFR certified?
>
> Let's see:
> 1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable
> system configuration?
> 2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000
>
> While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the
> requirements for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no
> portable will EVER meet these requirements-yes ever is a long time.
> That being said, I too will have a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel
> with the antenna mounted on the glare shield. It will sit right
> below an IFR certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx
> you still would be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to
> navigation, however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely
> will not be able to file /G.
>
> By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has
> reduced the WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480
> to a lowly TSO's 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also
> explains what took Garmin so long to get WAAS certification for the
> GNS 430/530.
>
> GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below:
> http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf
>
> http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf
>
> http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm
>
>
> William Curtis
> http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
>From my "Inexperienced" point of view:
- The 496 has a WAAS GPS receiver.
- It's newer than the panel mounted 430, 480, 5xx stuff
- They (Garmin) already have certified database for use
So why not make a portable receiver that meets the TSO standard? (Which I admittedly
know nothing about)
These are just questions from my viewpoint. Just because it's portable should
not mean it is not certifiable. (Again - My opinion!) The TSO requirements may
indeed force the panel mount issue.
As for cost, the certification costs will drive the cost of the unit up. Fewer
units sold also drive the cost up.
This whole certification / IFR business is new to me. So I am learning as I go.
This is a great forum to get the questions asked and get good feedback.
Thanks, Jim C
N312F
===========================================================
From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis@core.com>
Subject: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The
>> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
Jim,
What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR certified?
Let's see:
1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable system configuration?
2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000
While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements for
TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet these
requirements-yes ever is a long time. That being said, I too will have a portable
496/596(?) IN my panel with the antenna mounted on the glare shield. It
will sit right below an IFR certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx
you still would be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation,
however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able
to file /G.
By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the WAAS
certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's 129 box
like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took Garmin so long to get
WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530.
GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below:
http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf
http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf
http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
===========================================================
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Dang it - All these responses are making me rethink my plans!
Jim C
N312F
===========================================================
From: <jim@CombsFive.Com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>From my "Inexperienced" point of view:
- The 496 has a WAAS GPS receiver.
- It's newer than the panel mounted 430, 480, 5xx stuff
- They (Garmin) already have certified database for use
So why not make a portable receiver that meets the TSO standard? (Which I admittedly
know nothing about)
These are just questions from my viewpoint. Just because it's portable should
not mean it is not certifiable. (Again - My opinion!) The TSO requirements may
indeed force the panel mount issue.
As for cost, the certification costs will drive the cost of the unit up. Fewer
units sold also drive the cost up.
This whole certification / IFR business is new to me. So I am learning as I go.
This is a great forum to get the questions asked and get good feedback.
Thanks, Jim C
N312F
===========================================================
From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis@core.com>
Subject: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The
>> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
Jim,
What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR certified?
Let's see:
1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable system configuration?
2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000
While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements for
TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet these
requirements-yes ever is a long time. That being said, I too will have a portable
496/596(?) IN my panel with the antenna mounted on the glare shield. It
will sit right below an IFR certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx
you still would be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation,
however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able
to file /G.
By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the WAAS
certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's 129 box
like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took Garmin so long to get
WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530.
GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below:
http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf
http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf
http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
===========================================================
===========================================================
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: | RV 10 designation with FAA |
FWIW, same issue when filing through DUATS. Oddly enough though, if you
file over the phone you show as a RV-10. Tracking on FlightAware.com has
shown me as a RV-10 if a file by phone. For now if filing through DUATS I
call myself a RV-6/G and then in the remarks say it's really a RV-10 but I'm
not sure it's made a difference.
Marcus
40286
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of GenGrumpy@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:19 PM
Subject: RV10-List: RV 10 designation with FAA
For those interested, I sent the following to van's today (might help if you
also prodded them)
Grumpy #40404
Vans,
While working with FltPlan.com in trying to build my RV 10 (#40404)
database, and from which I file flight plans with the FAA, the RV-10 is not
included as an identified model in Section 5 (page 5-1-82) of the FAA Order
7340.1Y. It lists RV models 3 through 9 only.
Paragraph 1-3-3 (page 1-3-1) provides instructions on how to request an
aircraft-type designator be added to the approved identifiers.
All of us RV 10 fliers (and those to fly later) would appreciate it if Van's
would request that the -10 be added to FAA's list.
Thanks - John Miller
#40404 with 40 hrs and counting!!
Message 60
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Work Table Size |
The EAA tables are great - I did 3 of them. I thought hard about more
than 24 inches but the 24 really is right. I second the MDF - makes a
great surface. The only reason why you might want to go a few inches
wider or longer is to get an edge you can clamp to. However, I find the
bar clamps to be very effective in clamping to to the 2X4 that holds the
top. Bigger seems better but not necessarily in this case. 2 is better
than 1 and 3 better than 2.
The only variation on the tables I did was to leave off the doublers on
the bottom of the legs. You certainly don't need it for strength and
leaving it off makes it a little lighter and may make it a little easier
to slide on the floor - if you don't use wheels.
Remember to use glue for a solid table.
orchidman wrote:
>
> In the past there have been many topics discussing the minimum size to build
a 10 but I have not seen any discussion as to work tables. Tims site talks about
using an 8 foot and a 4 foot table but no reference to depth. The pictures
look like his were not 48. I suspect 24 or 32.
> I hope to be doing my inventory on the Emp kit next weekend and I am trying to
get the work area ready. I already have a 4 x 8 table for general work but
for the construction, it looks like most people are using much less then 48 of
depth. A shallower table allows easier working from both sides.
> If I go with a 4 ft and 8 ft table, can I get by with a 24 depth or do I need
32 or even wider?
> I am also considering adding a cutout in the 4 foot table for a 'Hand Riveting
and Dimpling Tool' that I can drop in when needed that will allow the aluminum
being worked on to rest on the table at the tools work height. Are others
finding this arangement useful?
>
>
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: | RV 10 designation with FAA |
Why not just file as experimental??
And I'm sure Van's would know how to do this, especially if 3-9 are
already there....
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GenGrumpy@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:19 PM
Subject: RV10-List: RV 10 designation with FAA
For those interested, I sent the following to van's today (might help if
you also prodded them)
Grumpy #40404
Vans,
While working with FltPlan.com in trying to build my RV 10 (#40404)
database, and from which I file flight plans with the FAA, the RV-10 is
not included as an identified model in Section 5 (page 5-1-82) of the
FAA Order 7340.1Y. It lists RV models 3 through 9 only.
Paragraph 1-3-3 (page 1-3-1) provides instructions on how to request an
aircraft-type designator be added to the approved identifiers.
All of us RV 10 fliers (and those to fly later) would appreciate it if
Van's would request that the -10 be added to FAA's list.
Thanks - John Miller
#40404 with 40 hrs and counting!!
Message 62
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? |
The 396, and presumably the 496, doesn't have approaches in it anyway.
They have some fixes but you *can't* use them for approaches, certified
or not.
What Tim said as far as IFR panel planning. I think it is very difficult
to do effectively without either 1) having used the ticket or 2) copying
someone who knows what they are doing.
Flying IFR with a homebuilt panel seems to me to be a lot more serious
business than flying a homebuilt aircraft to this pilot.
jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>
> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The Garmin Web
page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
>
> Here is the response from Garmin as to why:
>
> "The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no intentions to certify
a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go with a TSO-129 certified
box if you want to an IFR GPS."
>
> Hmmm. That really stinks!
>
> So does that mean no /G filing?
>
> Jim C
> N312F
> Finishing
>
>
>
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: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
There is a minor flaw in both Garmin's logic and Avionics West's
opinion. The manufacturer can NOT make a service bulletin mandatory
for Part 91, and they can NOT take away an FAA granted certification.
ONLY the FAA can do that. Unless you are flying a type certified
aircraft for hire, where service bulletins must be complied with, you
can ignore said service bulletin until/if the FAA decides to make it
an AD. Not sure why sole means of navigation is an issue anyway, since
the unit has VOR built in. Perhaps you would want to be extra cautious
about an LPV approach, but until more info comes out that is about all
you need to do. In fact, the document itself says it is a non-problem
in the real world:
"Garmin notified the FAA of a discrepancy in a test specification
relating to the Initial Acquisition and Reacquisition of GPS
Satellites in the presence of high noise and interference levels.
These high noise levels do not exist in any real-world situation at
this time so there is little if any impact to GNS 480 (CNX80) users.
However, Garmin is committed to resolving the issue quickly and
removing any limitations on our WAAS navigators."
KM
A&P/IA
On 12/14/06, W. Curtis <wcurtis@core.com> wrote:
> >> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The
> >> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
>
> Jim,
>
> What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR
> certified?
>
> Let's see:
> 1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable system
> configuration?
> 2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at $11,000
>
> While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements
> for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet
> these requirements-yes ever is a long time. That being said, I too will have
> a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with the antenna mounted on the glare
> shield. It will sit right below an IFR certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't
> have a GNS-4/5xx you still would be able to use the portable as
> "supplemental" aid to navigation, however, no matter how you read the regs
> you definitely will not be able to file /G.
>
> By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the
> WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's
> 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took Garmin so
> long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530.
>
> GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below:
> http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf
>
> http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf
>
> http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm
>
>
> William Curtis
> http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>
>
Message 64
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
O.K.
I'll get the book. Where?
Dave Leikam
40496
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick" <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
>
> OK so I'm ranting, it's lunch time so here goes.....Ivory soapbox and all
>
> The first step in risk management is hazard identification.
>
> OK so our hazard = metal fuel lines and high amperage electrical conductor
> in close proximity.
>
> Second step=Lowering or eliminating the risk of the hazard.
>
> This can be accomplished several ways....the simplistic way is to
> eliminate the hazard unless it is not possible...in this case there are
> many alternative routes for the electrical wire that it would go against
> practical thinking to route it in the tunnel so ELIMINATE the hazard!!
>
> If you had no other option and had to run these two items, the next step
> is to engineer a system that would lower the hazard to acceptable
> levels...this should not even be a consideration in this situation BUT the
> AC 43.13 1B, change 1 gives you some options in the form of conduits and
> proper postioning.
>
>>From day one this book has been in my shop, the binder has worn through
>>and I need to tape it or replace it...really replace since change 1 is
>>out.
>
> For those that don't have a copy get one, John, myself and many others
> have preached for the last almost three years!!
>
> Almost every question asked in this forum regarding fuel lines,
> electrical, acceptable metal practices etc. etc. etc. is right inside that
> book.
>
> I am guessing that many builders have not had the absolute pleasure to
> work on aircraft in a structured enviroment, Johns experience in
> commercial an mine in the military maybe gives us a slanted or "Nothing
> less than perfect will do" attitude.
>
> There is technical data that has to be followed for EVERY task that's
> performed on the aircraft. Step by step, aircraft maintenance forms that
> document every panel and component removed and replaced along with the
> required operational checks afterwards. Quality assurance and supervision
> inspections and final sign offs. You get thick skinned because you just
> finished up an 8 hour auxillary drive gearbox change and missed safety
> wiring one bolt that is now almost impossible to get to. It sucks to make
> a mistake and have it pointed out so you fix it with a smile and swear you
> won't miss THAT again. Those checks and balances are what makes the safety
> records what they are today and what yours is going to be tomorrow
>
> Get yourself a copy of AC 43.13 and mitigate your risk.
>
> It's written in bent sheet metal and blood. Get two copies, one for the
> shop and one for the bathroom...really good bathroom book.
>
> Now back to soap sudsing each other up ;)
>
> Rick S.
> 40185
>
>
>
Message 65
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
All IFR navigation systems have to have monitoring to ensure they are on
the air and accurate. Ground based equipment have permanent receivers
nearby the fulfill that need and sound alarms in a tower or FSS if they
are out of tolerance. GPS has to use RAIM or a WAAS prediction program
to ensure enough satellites will be in view. Portables don't have that
function. You have to have an indicator in your scan for course
guidance...on screen indications not acceptable. You have to have an
annunciator to tell you what mode it is in, alert you to messages and
warnings..and other stuff in the TSO. You have to ensure no avionics
interference, which requires a fixed location. After all that, most
critical, the FAA has said they will never approve a portable, end of
discussion.
jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>
> >From my "Inexperienced" point of view:
>
> - The 496 has a WAAS GPS receiver.
> - It's newer than the panel mounted 430, 480, 5xx stuff
> - They (Garmin) already have certified database for use
>
> So why not make a portable receiver that meets the TSO standard? (Which I admittedly
know nothing about)
>
> These are just questions from my viewpoint. Just because it's portable should
not mean it is not certifiable. (Again - My opinion!) The TSO requirements
may indeed force the panel mount issue.
>
> As for cost, the certification costs will drive the cost of the unit up. Fewer
units sold also drive the cost up.
>
> This whole certification / IFR business is new to me. So I am learning as I
go.
>
> This is a great forum to get the questions asked and get good feedback.
>
> Thanks, Jim C
> N312F
>
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: | Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
Sorry to inform you John, and a bonus for those "holiday cheapies"
<http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99C827DB9BAAC81B86256B4500596C4E?OpenDocument>
Here is the link to AC 43.13-1B including change 1 all chapters as
acrobat pdf, and all for free.
Or <http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/> for all sorts of aircraft information.
Our taxes at work.
Dave Leikam wrote:
>
> O.K.
>
> I'll get the book. Where?
>
> Dave Leikam
> 40496
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick" <ricksked@earthlink.net>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:56 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
>
>
>>
>> OK so I'm ranting, it's lunch time so here goes.....Ivory soapbox and
>> all
>>
>> The first step in risk management is hazard identification.
>>
>> OK so our hazard = metal fuel lines and high amperage electrical
>> conductor in close proximity.
>>
>> Second step=Lowering or eliminating the risk of the hazard.
>>
>> This can be accomplished several ways....the simplistic way is to
>> eliminate the hazard unless it is not possible...in this case there
>> are many alternative routes for the electrical wire that it would go
>> against practical thinking to route it in the tunnel so ELIMINATE the
>> hazard!!
>>
>> If you had no other option and had to run these two items, the next
>> step is to engineer a system that would lower the hazard to
>> acceptable levels...this should not even be a consideration in this
>> situation BUT the AC 43.13 1B, change 1 gives you some options in the
>> form of conduits and proper postioning.
>>
>>> From day one this book has been in my shop, the binder has worn
>>> through and I need to tape it or replace it...really replace since
>>> change 1 is out.
>>
>> For those that don't have a copy get one, John, myself and many
>> others have preached for the last almost three years!!
>>
>> Almost every question asked in this forum regarding fuel lines,
>> electrical, acceptable metal practices etc. etc. etc. is right inside
>> that book.
>>
>> I am guessing that many builders have not had the absolute pleasure
>> to work on aircraft in a structured enviroment, Johns experience in
>> commercial an mine in the military maybe gives us a slanted or
>> "Nothing less than perfect will do" attitude.
>>
>> There is technical data that has to be followed for EVERY task that's
>> performed on the aircraft. Step by step, aircraft maintenance forms
>> that document every panel and component removed and replaced along
>> with the required operational checks afterwards. Quality assurance
>> and supervision inspections and final sign offs. You get thick
>> skinned because you just finished up an 8 hour auxillary drive
>> gearbox change and missed safety wiring one bolt that is now almost
>> impossible to get to. It sucks to make a mistake and have it pointed
>> out so you fix it with a smile and swear you won't miss THAT again.
>> Those checks and balances are what makes the safety records what they
>> are today and what yours is going to be tomorrow
>>
>> Get yourself a copy of AC 43.13 and mitigate your risk.
>>
>> It's written in bent sheet metal and blood. Get two copies, one for
>> the shop and one for the bathroom...really good bathroom book.
>>
>> Now back to soap sudsing each other up ;)
>>
>> Rick S.
>> 40185
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 67
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Another New RV-10 Builder |
After reading the note from Gary regarding his decision to purchase an RV
-10 kit, I felt like he was reading my mind. I also have read, reread and surfed
all of the web sites pertaining to RV-10 construction.
Not only is the Matronics List a valuable tool, but the plethora of data
from all of the web sites are amazing.
I received my kit on the 12th and as of tonight I have finished deburring
the VS skin and will start on the ribs tomorrow.
If I recall, there was a request to Gary as to his location.... well if
anybody wants to know mine, I am located in Somerville, TN (about 50 miles east
of KMEM).
Thanks to all who have contributed their thoughts, perceptions and gotchas.
Rusty Bliss
40668
_rbliss1015@aol.com_ (mailto:rbliss1015@aol.com)
Somerville, TN
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! --
|