Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:31 AM - Re: Lycoming IO-540 C4B5 (Russell Daves)
2. 05:59 AM - Re: Wiring (dc71@netspace.net.au)
3. 06:56 AM - Re: Rear spar alignment flaw and Warning (Niko)
4. 10:27 AM - Re: fiberglass course (Dave Saylor)
5. 10:58 AM - Re: fiberglass course (Jae Chang)
6. 11:03 AM - Re: fiberglass course (Jeff Carpenter)
7. 11:08 AM - Re: Re: fiberglass course ()
8. 11:12 AM - Re: fiberglass course (jim berry)
9. 11:33 AM - Re: fiberglass course (John Jessen)
10. 12:42 PM - Re: fiberglass course (John W. Cox)
11. 12:48 PM - Re: Is It OK to Flatten a Dimple? (Jesse Saint)
12. 12:48 PM - Re: Lycoming IO-540 C4B5 (Jesse Saint)
13. 01:07 PM - Re: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 (Bill DeRouchey)
14. 01:31 PM - Re: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 (spelling) (Bill DeRouchey)
15. 01:42 PM - Re: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 (John W. Cox)
16. 02:35 PM - Re: Lycoming IO-540 C4B5 (Mike Lauritsen - Work)
17. 02:51 PM - Re: Crossbow vs Pinpoint (Mike@Crossbow)
18. 03:31 PM - Re: Lycoming IO-540 C4B5 (John W. Cox)
19. 03:47 PM - Re: FAA Meeting (Pascal)
20. 04:30 PM - Re: Re: Lycoming IO-540 C4B5 ()
21. 04:59 PM - Re: FAA Meeting (John W. Cox)
22. 05:13 PM - Re: Lycoming IO-540 C4B5 (Jesse Saint)
23. 05:17 PM - Re: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 (William Curtis)
24. 05:50 PM - Re: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 (John W. Cox)
25. 07:06 PM - Re: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 (Bill DeRouchey)
26. 07:13 PM - Re: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 (RobHickman@aol.com)
27. 08:37 PM - Re: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 (Bill DeRouchey)
28. 10:23 PM - Hole plugs for the baggage door (Nick Leonard)
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: Lycoming IO-540 C4B5 |
I agree with Tim. My C4B5 is flying high on N710RV (first flight
7/28/06). It is a great core to use for overhaul for the RV-10.
Russ Daves
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 |
|
In that case, I wholeheartedly agree that Steinair have supported their
customers better than lancair with respect to the D2A demise.
I'm still thinking that either way is far better than paying full retail for a
Crossbow 425EX - approx $7000
Indran
Quoting "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>:
> In addition to my other comments, you paid for a working system, does it
> seem right to you that your vendor, who took your money, offers to split
> the cost with you? Kind of strange in my book. The point being is that I
> was giving a reference for Stein, who made his customers whole by
> delivering the system that they ordered and paid for. He did not make us
> split it with him and get a credit to use at a later date at full retail
> pricing.
> Dan
>
do not archive
------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
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: Rear spar alignment flaw and Warning |
Hi Jae,=0A=0ASorry to see you are having such a problem with your rear spar
.=0A=0AAfter seeing your latest pictures I would replace the rear spar. No
t that it couldn't be fixed but you are going to put a lot of time into fix
ing it with shims, you won't be totally happy with it and then you might st
ill run into unforseen problems when you mount your ailerons and flaps beca
use of the taller aft spar. You would be in effect changing the airfoil sh
ape. One you start drilling out the rivets you might find its going fairly
fast and you haven't lost all that much time.=0A=0AGood luck with it.=0A
=0ANiko=0A40188=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Jae Chang <jc-m
atronics_rv10@jline.com>=0ATo: rv10-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Friday, Febr
uary 23, 2007 7:46:39 PM=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List: Rear spar alignment flaw
nics_rv10@jline.com>=0A=0ANiko... Vans is recommending using oops rivets, s
o i think that would=0Adefinitely mean a weaker structure than using the or
iginal callout. Part=0Aof the reason, is because this is a tight access are
a, because of the=0Abuilt-up doublers in the way.=0A=0AFinally, Vans brough
t up another issue. The 1/16" missing from the upper=0Aflange had to have g
one somewhere. Yep, it went into the web of the spar.=0AThere is now quite
a gap created above the ribs.=0A=0AThis is the gap in the right (problem si
de) root rib. That is almost 1/8"=0Athick. 0.125". The top skin is .032". T
hat means the shim I would have to=0Ause to fill that gap will be 3 to 4 ti
mes the thickness of the top skin.=0Ahttp://www.jline.com/log/aviation/buil
d/wingkit/photos/IMG_4485.html=0A=0AThis is another inner rib, all the inne
r ribs have the same problem, up to=0Athe 5th rib, which is fine.=0Ahttp://
www.jline.com/log/aviation/build/wingkit/photos/IMG_4486.html=0A=0AAs a com
parison, this is what my left root rib looks like - what it should=0Abe.=0A
http://www.jline.com/log/aviation/build/wingkit/photos/IMG_4487.html=0A=0AI
am going to have to think about this over the weekend. Now, i am leaning
=0Atowards replacement.=0A=0AAny opinions on what others would do?=0A=0ATha
t hissing sound i hear is the sound of building momentum leaking away=0Aaga
in!=0A=0AJae=0A=0A> Hi Jay,=0A>=0A> I think you will be fine going with 1/8
inch rivets.=0A>=0A> You would have reduced your allowable bearing stress
on the spar by about=0A> 30% due to the shorter edge distance but you will
have gained about that=0A> much from the higher bearing area. By the way,
1.5D is not considered=0A> short edge distance. Many pieces of structure a
re designed to that edge=0A> distance. I am assuming you are measuring fro
m the center of the hole to=0A> the edge of the part. Additionally dependi
ng on the thickness of the=0A> parts the spar might not be the weakest link
.=0A>=0A>=0A> The net area on the spar will be slightly reduced so the spar
will be=0A> weaker by the difference in the area of the upper flanges whic
h is pretty=0A> small. Also the upper spar is usually in compression which
minimizes the=0A> effect.=0A>=0A> I don't think its a problem but you migh
t want to check with Vans anyway.=0A> Do make sure though that you get good
holes and no "figure 8s"=0A>=0A> Niko=0A> 40188=0A>=0A>=0A> ----- Original
Message ----=0A> From: Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10@jline.com>=0A> To: rv1
0-list@matronics.com=0A> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:34:14 PM=0A> Sub
ject: RE: RV10-List: Rear spar alignment flaw and Warning=0A>=0A>=0A> --> R
V10-List message posted by: "Jae Chang" <jc-matronics_rv10@jline.com>=0A>
=0A> Kevin... Well, I just hope we can help this from happening to anyone e
lse.=0A> I=0A> have already ordered a replacement left rear spar. Even the
replacement=0A> was not=0A> the SAME as my original. With these discrepanci
es, I think there are=0A> plenty of=0A> quality control issues on the rear
spars=0A>=0A> At this point, I am leaning towards upsizing to 1/8" hole and
rivets.=0A> However,=0A> what can I do to deal with the edge-distance clea
rance issue? Does anyone=0A> have=0A> any recommendations?=0A>=0A> My thoug
hts are:=0A>=0A> 1. Just leave it alone. It's just 1/16" under the edge dis
tance clearance=0A> for a=0A> 1/8" rivet.=0A>=0A> 2. Add some extra 3/32" h
oles and rivets in rear spar upper flange. The=0A> current=0A> spacing betw
een holes is 26/32". If I put another hole in between existing=0A> holes, i
s that safe to do?=0A>=0A> Thanks again for the suggestions,=0A> Jae=0A>=0A
> -----Original Message-----=0A> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
=0A> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Belue
=0A> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 10:55 AM=0A> To: rv10-list@matronics.c
om=0A> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rear spar alignment flaw and Warning=0A>=0A>
=0A> Jae,=0A>=0A> I had the same problem (about 2 years ago). My rear spar
flange was off=0A> more=0A> than yours, though. Van's sent me another spar
and I drilled out all the=0A> rivets=0A> and replaced it. It looks like you
can use yours - I would drill the holes=0A> to=0A> match and use the "oops
" rivets if necessary. It's a good idea for=0A> everyone to=0A> check the d
imensions on the rear spar before rivetting because it is a big=0A> job=0A>
to remove it.=0A>=0A> Kevin Belue=0A> RV-6A flying=0A> RV-10 finish=0A>=0A
>=0A> ----- Original Message -----=0A> From: "Jae Chang" <jc-matronics_rv10
@jline.com>=0A> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>=0A> Sent: Friday, February 23
, 2007 12:18 PM=0A> Subject: RV10-List: Rear spar alignment flaw and Warnin
ics_rv10@jline.com>=0A>>=0A>> Has anyone else dealt with this issue? I am o
n page 16-2 on the Top Wing=0A>> Skins=0A>> section. My left wing lined up
perfectly. On the right wing, to my=0A>> surprise, I=0A>> have an alignment
problem between the top wing skin and the rear spar.=0A>>=0A>> Here are so
me photos to illustrate...=0A>>=0A>> Every other hole lines up between the
top wing skin and the wing=0A>> skeleton,=0A>> except for the inboard rear
spar holes. The holes are out of alignment=0A>> and=0A>> gradually come clo
ser into alignment until they are lined up perfectly=0A>> again=0A>> betwee
n the 4th and 5th rib, counting the root rib as rib #1.=0A>> http://www.jli
ne.com/log/aviation/build/wingkit/photos/IMG_4481.html=0A>>=0A>> Broader pi
cture of the general area...=0A>> http://www.jline.com/log/aviation/build/w
ingkit/photos/IMG_4482.html=0A>>=0A>> The inboard most hole is the furthest
out of line by about 1/16". The=0A>> rear=0A>> spar=0A>> hole needs to com
e further aft by 1/16".=0A>>=0A>> I then did a lot of measuring to compare
my left wing (perfect) with=0A>> right=0A>> wing=0A>> (problem). The proble
m appears to be with the rear spar. The upper=0A>> flange=0A>> seems=0A>> t
o taper from 22/32" wide down to 20/32" wide at the inboard edge, which=0A>
> would=0A>> account for the 1/16" alignment error in the top skin.=0A>>=0A
>> Photo of rear spar top flange on left (correct side):=0A>> http://www.jl
ine.com/log/aviation/build/wingkit/photos/IMG_4483.html=0A>>=0A>> Photo of
rear spar top flange on right (error side):=0A>> http://www.jline.com/log/a
viation/build/wingkit/photos/IMG_4484.html=0A>>=0A>> I spoke with Van's thi
s morning. They made 2 recommendations:=0A>>=0A>> 1. Does the bottom skin
line up? Answer: surprisingly enough, YES. It's=0A>> not=0A>> perfect, but
will be manageable.=0A>>=0A>> 2. Drill and rivet the misaligned holes with
1/8" rivets.=0A>>=0A>> The problem with this solution is that the new hole
will have an=0A>> edge-distance=0A>> problem. I should have 1/4" clearance
to the edge, but I will only have=0A>> 3/16"=0A>> clearance to the aft edg
e on the rear spar. As I work outboard, the edge=0A>> distance issue should
get better and better, but still not within spec.=0A>>=0A>> 1/16" would no
t be a problem anywhere else on the wing, as far as I can=0A>> tell. I=0A>>
could have "massaged" things possibly by that amount. However, this=0A>> p
roblem is=0A>> at the wing root and wing walk area, which is heavily reinfo
rced. There=0A>> is=0A>> no=0A>> "massaging" possible here.=0A>>=0A>> Final
ly, I could get a new rear-spar, however, that means removing all=0A>> of
=0A>> the=0A>> doublers and tons of AN470AD4-8 and 4-6 rivets!!!=0A>>=0A>>
Thus, the warning to other builders, BEFORE riveting the rear spar,=0A>> me
asure the=0A>> top flange on your rear spar, to make sure it stays even in
width. Even=0A>> better,=0A>> try fitting the top skin on before riveting t
he rear spar.=0A>>=0A>> Can anyone provide any other recommendations?=0A>>
=0A>> Another thought is, can I somehow put in a shim between the rear spar
=0A>> and=0A>> the 2=0A>> inboard ribs? The shim would have to only be alon
g the top holes, since=0A>> the=0A>> bottom holes are lined up.=0A>>=0A>> T
hanks,=0A>>=0A>> Jae=0A>>=0A>>==============0A=0A
========================
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: | fiberglass course |
Jay and All,
The SportAir workshops are worthwhile. The composite workshop will give you
an overview of the two types of resin used on RVs and a chance to work with
at least the most common one if not both.
If there is sufficient interest, I would be happy to put together a more
advanced 2 day course that is specific to RV10s, particularly fitting the
top, bonding the door skins, fitting the windows, etc.
Any takers for late April? I'd need at least 8. Cost would be $300,
Saturday and Sunday, in Watsonville (KWVI).
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rowe
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: RV10-List: fiberglass course
Just about to put the cabin on and without any skills or knowledge re.
fiberglass. I see that EAA has a "Composite Course" weekend instruction
class. Is that only for those building glass planes or would it be
something useful to the RV group? Or is there other sources of instruction
out there. Help!! Jay Rowe 40301.
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: | fiberglass course |
Hi Dave... i am registered for the March Composite workshop. however, i would
obviously be interested in the RV10 specific course. That would be great.
There is an Aeroelectric Connection seminar in Sonoma on the weekend of April 21
and 22. Any other weekend, count me in!
My contact info is:
Jae Chang
415-422-0522
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: fiberglass course
If there is sufficient interest, I would be happy to put together a more
advanced 2 day course that is specific to RV10s, particularly fitting the top,
bonding the door skins, fitting the windows, etc.
Any takers for late April? I'd need at least 8. Cost would be $300, Saturday
and Sunday, in Watsonville (KWVI).
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: fiberglass course |
Sign me up...
Jeff Carpenter
40304
Do Not Archive
On Feb 26, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Dave Saylor wrote:
> Jay and All,
>
> The SportAir workshops are worthwhile. The composite workshop will
> give you an overview of the two types of resin used on RVs and a
> chance to work with at least the most common one if not both.
>
> If there is sufficient interest, I would be happy to put together a
> more advanced 2 day course that is specific to RV10s, particularly
> fitting the top, bonding the door skins, fitting the windows, etc.
>
> Any takers for late April? I'd need at least 8. Cost would be
> $300, Saturday and Sunday, in Watsonville (KWVI).
>
> Dave Saylor
> AirCrafters LLC
> 140 Aviation Way
> Watsonville, CA
> 831-722-9141
> 831-750-0284 CL
> www.AirCraftersLLC.com
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rowe
> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 5:54 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: fiberglass course
>
> Just about to put the cabin on and without any skills or knowledge
> re. fiberglass. I see that EAA has a "Composite Course" weekend
> instruction class. Is that only for those building glass planes or
> would it be something useful to the RV group? Or is there other
> sources of instruction out there. Help!! Jay Rowe 40301.
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhref="http://
> forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ===========================================================
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: fiberglass course |
I would be interested, but the date would impact my availability.
>
> From: "Dave Saylor" <Dave@AirCraftersLLC.com>
> Date: 2007/02/26 Mon PM 01:24:02 EST
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: fiberglass course
>
> Jay and All,
>
> The SportAir workshops are worthwhile. The composite workshop will give you
> an overview of the two types of resin used on RVs and a chance to work with
> at least the most common one if not both.
>
> If there is sufficient interest, I would be happy to put together a more
> advanced 2 day course that is specific to RV10s, particularly fitting the
> top, bonding the door skins, fitting the windows, etc.
>
> Any takers for late April? I'd need at least 8. Cost would be $300,
> Saturday and Sunday, in Watsonville (KWVI).
>
> Dave Saylor
> AirCrafters LLC
> 140 Aviation Way
> Watsonville, CA
> 831-722-9141
> 831-750-0284 CL
> www.AirCraftersLLC.com
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rowe
> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 5:54 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: fiberglass course
>
>
> Just about to put the cabin on and without any skills or knowledge re.
> fiberglass. I see that EAA has a "Composite Course" weekend instruction
> class. Is that only for those building glass planes or would it be
> something useful to the RV group? Or is there other sources of instruction
> out there. Help!! Jay Rowe 40301.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: fiberglass course |
Dave
I am interested. Most any date will work for me.
Jim Berry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97447#97447
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: | fiberglass course |
Dave, I'd be interested.
John Jessen
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: fiberglass course
Jay and All,
The SportAir workshops are worthwhile. The composite workshop will give you
an overview of the two types of resin used on RVs and a chance to work with
at least the most common one if not both.
If there is sufficient interest, I would be happy to put together a more
advanced 2 day course that is specific to RV10s, particularly fitting the
top, bonding the door skins, fitting the windows, etc.
Any takers for late April? I'd need at least 8. Cost would be $300,
Saturday and Sunday, in Watsonville (KWVI).
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rowe
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: RV10-List: fiberglass course
Just about to put the cabin on and without any skills or knowledge re.
fiberglass. I see that EAA has a "Composite Course" weekend instruction
class. Is that only for those building glass planes or would it be
something useful to the RV group? Or is there other sources of instruction
out there. Help!! Jay Rowe 40301.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: | fiberglass course |
David - I have Factory Rotax Heavy Maintenance Training the entire week
of April 16-20th For the RV-12 and ELSA. The weekend of April 28th and
29th would work best for me to get down to Watsonville. My interest
would be more specific to the RV-10 materials and your techniques.
John Cox
Do not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: fiberglass course
Jay and All,
The SportAir workshops are worthwhile. The composite workshop will give
you an overview of the two types of resin used on RVs and a chance to
work with at least the most common one if not both.
If there is sufficient interest, I would be happy to put together a more
advanced 2 day course that is specific to RV10s, particularly fitting
the top, bonding the door skins, fitting the windows, etc.
Any takers for late April? I'd need at least 8. Cost would be $300,
Saturday and Sunday, in Watsonville (KWVI).
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
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: | Is It OK to Flatten a Dimple? |
As John already mentioned, it is probably OK on one, but you don't want to
do it much. In general, if you dimple something that doesn't need a dimple,
you are better off using a flush rivet if you can than flattening it out and
using a round head. I think Van's would say it is OK to rivet it flattened
out if it is just one hole. To see how it weakens the part, take a scrap
piece, drill a hole, then dimple it, flatten it, dimple, etc. until it
breaks out. It doesn't take long. If you dimple it the wrong way and then
dimple it back the right way, it can break even after the second dimple, so
it is definitely a LOT weaker.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Reining
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 6:18 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Is It OK to Flatten a Dimple?
Oops - I mistakenly dimpled a hole in one of the flanges on a tail cone
frame (where the longeron attaches). It flattened right out when I squeezed
it with a rivet set. Is this OK? I wouldn't think a whole row would be a
good idea, but just one?
Bill (and Jon) Reining
40514
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: | Lycoming IO-540 C4B5 |
N256H has over 300 hours on a C4B5 off an Aztec. It was overhauled with new
Titan cylinders. Two things to watch out for, one very minor. First, and
the bigger issue, you will probably need new engine mount ears. The one we
got has the big hole ears and the -10 needs the small hole. I know there is
a technical Dynafocal 1, Dynafocal 2 and some other name for the different
mount formats, but I don't know which is which. If it has the big holes,
you will need to buy a set with small holes. I actually may have a set
around here, but I would have to look for it. Second, the work of getting
the baffles fit around the case is a fair bit more on the C4B5 (in my
experience) than the D4A5. There are some slight differences in the case
(at least on the one we got) that make it more work to get fit, while the
D4A5 fits the baffles absolutely beautifully as they come from Van's.
Again, the 2nd one is a minor issue, just requiring a little more time.
It is also my understanding that the internal parts are identical, so
running it as a 260HP 2700RPM engine instead of a 250HP 2575RPM engine is
supposedly fine, and since you are putting it on an experimental airplane,
you could probably put that in your operating manual somewhere and be fine,
but that is a decision you have to make, of course.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jdalton77
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:08 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Lycoming IO-540 C4B5
Anyone using this engine? Lycoming IO-540 C4B5?
I don't know a lot about engines but this is 250HP and is from an Aztec.
What do you guys think?
Jeff
Just received slo-build Wing Kit
#40544
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: | Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 |
Hi William-
Thanks for the good question. It required me to remember all the reasons for
each decision of each step over the last 3.5 years. Its not a short answer.
Why is it so expensive?
I, more than any other, would like our primary flight display "PFD" to be less
expensive. However, if you look at the complete panel prices you will see that
you receive all the high end features without the high end pricing. In the
end, our price was determined by our objective: provide a high quality, solid
IFR platform. Kindly understand that "solid" means with and without turbulence.
Lets disect this objective.
We started with the best components available, integrated a display computer,
and filled in the holes. Garmin 430/530 was chosen as one cornerstone. This unit
has certifications that allow you to file /G, an easy map update process,
Glideslope, Localizer, GPS, and COM receivers. Its a mature product that you can
afford. Note that most Chelton owners have a G430 installed. TIP: for $500
you can get the G430 downloaded with terrain capability - not TAWS, just terrain
warning. ANOTHER TIP: on our PFD we show the numbers that you typically see
on the right side of the G430 display with map selected. Use the menu button
and remove this area from the G430 increasing your map size by 50%!
All the suggested panels are FAA legal.
Mission is cross country IFR. This is the rule, not the exception. Many innovations
were added to support this mission, such as, fuel management, wind, prop
setting, etc. We don't approach IFR as a challenge. With proper instrumentation,
we expect it to be comfortable with the grandkids (or if your ahead of the
game - kids) in the back.
We allowed for a robust backup plan with more than one layer. If you look closely
at the suggested panels you will see 2 & 1/2 levels of backup. The independently
sensored autopilot is the half level. Note that each subsequent level
becomes simplier. My objective to the all-in-one glass PFD is the backup becomes
more complex. Typically, one choses another similar unit as backup with the
advertised swap displays in case of failure. It requires very complex logic
to do this automatically, and there are hardware and software components added
to support this functionality which makes it less reliable. The origin of this
thinking is what the engineering department would call "scope". They would list
all the things that could go wrong with their component and provide a recovery
procedure. The fault with this scope is the pilot is subject to any problem
that occurs - not just a predefined set of PFD problems.
Nowhere can you purchase a glass panel that is as deeply integrated into the
RV10 as our PFD. We pickup the fuel levels, flaps, door sensors, and stall warning
to minimize weight, wiring, and additional components.
The price of our product would be much more appealing if we removed the gyro.
Unfortunately, Crossbow is the only manufacturer of solid state gyros that meets
our objective of a "solid IFR platform". Since there is only one qualifying
choice I did not want our customers to shop the gyro and attempt to save money
thinking they were still purchasing a "solid IFR platform". Perhaps, in the
future there will be other suitable choices and we could provide options. Now
I must talk about gyros so you won't believe that this is an arbitrary judgement.
Before I ordered the RV10 kit (and I am kit #29), I swore that I would never
put a blankity, blank vacuum system in another plane ... ever. So, my approach
was to create a solid state gyro that would be the crux of an IFR panel. I purchased
the magnetic sensors, accelerometers, and rate gyros necessary to build
my own gyro. After prototyping each of the components and thinking what would
be required to produce a reliable 360 degree, accurate and inexpensive gyro
the answer was it is simply not possible because of the cost of the engineering
test equipment required. You need a very accurate rate table, a temperature
chamber to characterize sensor behavior, calibrated orientation, tight production
controls, and the ability to measure and calibrate each unit shipped. It was
clearly a product for a very serious engineering company dedicated to this
purpose. This was not my intended business, so I abandoned this effort and began
shopping.
My criteria for purchase was/is:
1. Proven know-how engineering and manufacturing cabability
2. Published acuracy specifications.
3. Experienced with aircraft applications
4. Birth certificate (calibration) for each unit
5. Price
Needless to say, only Crossbow met these requirements.
Looking to the PFD's future, we offer multiple, defined components rather than
a single box. Software upgrades are simple, changing out the entire cpu is simple,
updating the display is simple, etc. Since the purchased components have
clearly defined interfaces and our manufactured components have standard, extensible
protocol links with the display computer its relatively easy to keep
improving the product. We don't ever want to be in the position of squeezing life
out of a 6.4" display long after the market has moved on.
Regarding your specific question about the competition $10,000 under our price:
Look close, they are all VFR components. The major reason is their gyros are
of dubious quality, and do not meet the first four purchase requirements (above).
Most of these manufacturers clearly state that they are for VFR usage -
its the purchasers that streach the usage into IFR situations. Trading money on
the ground for a challenge in the air is a bad idea.
Regarding your question about the Garmin 600 $10,000 over our price: This package
was designed to directly compete with Chelton. Its not the best of everything,
just better than Chelton. Choose a display you will be comfortable looking
at for many hours. They tilted two 6.4" displays on end with low resolution
and unknown brightness. Our display is 10.4" with 1024 x 768 resolution and 1200
nits of brightness. These are engineering numbers and cannot be compared with
a "sunlight bright" phase the marketing weenie penned. The visibility from
an RV10 is wonderful - but the downside is it lets in a lot of sun.
What computer are you purchasing? Does it have extra capacity for future upgrades,
or is it an economical implementation that needs a hardware upgrade for
future improvements?
I looked once again for the accuracy specifications of the Garmin gyro with no
luck. Nothing is published. I have become very hard headed on this subject because
I view the gyro as the crux of an IFR flight. Remember that our IFR mission
includes turbulence. This is when I expect to feel comfortable and it doesn't
matter if this is a lucky day or not.
Bill DeRouchey
N939SB, flying
bill@wtdaviationtechnology.com
William Curtis <wcurtis@nerv10.com> wrote:
Bill,
Congratulations! It is encouraging to see continued innovation in the aircraft/avionics
arena.
If you don't mind however, permit me to be the devil's advocate for a moment.
Looking through your site I see that your single panel, single gyro EFIS system
is $19,000 with an additional $3000 for an second display. What additional
does you system offer at $10,000 more than an equivalent more established Grand
Rapids system or only $10,000 less than a fully type certificated Garmin G600
system? Please don't take this question the wrong way, only it seems on the
surface, a builder would be paying more for an equivalent experimental system
that does not yet have any track record.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
---------------------------------
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.93 FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD 'From' yahoo.com does not match 'Received' headers
0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
There have been several folks from the Matronics list that have been following
the activities of building my own RV10, air data computer, primary flight display,
Garmin interface computer, and a Crossbow gyro. All of these components
have been integrated into my panel which is IFR legal with lots of innovation
for cross country travel.
I took full advantage of every skill I have ever learned in my life to make this
happen but mostly engineer, programmer, and pilot. It has been wonderful to
lay in bed thinking of ways to make the flight experience more enjoyable and
safer then implement the idea the next day.
Now its time for Sara and I to make a second run at creating a business. The
first was packaged telecommunication software for DEC computers from 1978-1986.
The prototype panel has been flying since August and I have been steadily making
improvements and productizing the components since then. Just last week we
finished the first production components for another Watsonville,CA RV-10 panel
and its time to open the doors to our new business.
Our web site went live this evening. We loaded it with features and (hopefully) good description of what the panel could do for you. Note that from initial concept the panel was approached as a system design instead of just another box. Without this approach the many good ideas that arose from who knows where could not have been implemented and its these ideas that make it a great panel. Check it out at: www.wtdaviationtechnology.com
Call if you like. I am always interested in suggestions or discussing ideas.
If you will consider doing business with us then I will do the best I can for
you.
Bill DeRouchey
N939SB, flying
bill@wtdaviationtechnology.com
831.345.3440
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?R --> http://forums.matronics.com=============
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: | Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 (spelling) |
Sorry for the unprofessional spelling. It was spell checked but sending the earlier
version doesn't help much.
Bill
do not archive
William Curtis <wcurtis@nerv10.com> wrote:
Bill,
Congratulations! It is encouraging to see continued innovation in the aircraft/avionics
arena.
If you don't mind however, permit me to be the devil's advocate for a moment.
Looking through your site I see that your single panel, single gyro EFIS system
is $19,000 with an additional $3000 for an second display. What additional
does you system offer at $10,000 more than an equivalent more established Grand
Rapids system or only $10,000 less than a fully type certificated Garmin G600
system? Please don't take this question the wrong way, only it seems on the
surface, a builder would be paying more for an equivalent experimental system
that does not yet have any track record.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
---------------------------------
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.93 FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD 'From' yahoo.com does not match 'Received' headers
0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
There have been several folks from the Matronics list that have been following
the activities of building my own RV10, air data computer, primary flight display,
Garmin interface computer, and a Crossbow gyro. All of these components
have been integrated into my panel which is IFR legal with lots of innovation
for cross country travel.
I took full advantage of every skill I have ever learned in my life to make this
happen but mostly engineer, programmer, and pilot. It has been wonderful to
lay in bed thinking of ways to make the flight experience more enjoyable and
safer then implement the idea the next day.
Now its time for Sara and I to make a second run at creating a business. The
first was packaged telecommunication software for DEC computers from 1978-1986.
The prototype panel has been flying since August and I have been steadily making
improvements and productizing the components since then. Just last week we
finished the first production components for another Watsonville,CA RV-10 panel
and its time to open the doors to our new business.
Our web site went live this evening. We loaded it with features and (hopefully) good description of what the panel could do for you. Note that from initial concept the panel was approached as a system design instead of just another box. Without this approach the many good ideas that arose from who knows where could not have been implemented and its these ideas that make it a great panel. Check it out at: www.wtdaviationtechnology.com
Call if you like. I am always interested in suggestions or discussing ideas.
If you will consider doing business with us then I will do the best I can for
you.
Bill DeRouchey
N939SB, flying
bill@wtdaviationtechnology.com
831.345.3440
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: | Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 |
Turbulence and Unreported Icing coupled with strong headwinds and my use
of Corrective Lens (due to advancing pilot age) in a low light
situation.... Now that gets my attention. I think your thought process,
research, design background and final decisions will prove to offer the
RV-10 builders a great option to Butt up against Chelton, OP
Technologies and Garmin. I ruled out the cheaper VFR offerings long
ago. It is down to painfully thoughtful and analytic evaluation at this
point. I also look forward to Deems' report flying behind his OP Tech
screens.
Bill, Thanks for the investment and the answer to our Devil's Advocate.
John Cox
#40600
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
DeRouchey
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 1:07 PM
Subject: re: RV10-List: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10
Hi William-
Thanks for the good question. It required me to remember all the reasons
for each decision of each step over the last 3.5 years. Its not a short
answer.
Why is it so expensive?
I, more than any other, would like our primary flight display "PFD" to
be less expensive. However, if you look at the complete panel prices you
will see that you receive all the high end features without the high end
pricing. In the end, our price was determined by our objective: provide
a high quality, solid IFR platform. Kindly understand that "solid" means
with and without turbulence. Lets disect this objective.
We started with the best components available, integrated a display
computer, and filled in the holes. Garmin 430/530 was chosen as one
cornerstone. This unit has certifications that allow you to file /G, an
easy map update process, Glideslope, Localizer, GPS, and COM receivers.
Its a mature product that you can afford. Note that most Chelton owners
have a G430 installed. TIP: for $500 you can get the G430 downloaded
with terrain capability - not TAWS, just terrain warning. ANOTHER TIP:
on our PFD we show the numbers that you typically see on the right side
of the G430 display with map selected. Use the menu button and remove
this area from the G430 increasing your map size by 50%!
All the suggested panels are FAA legal.
Mission is cross country IFR. This is the rule, not the exception. Many
innovations were added to support this mission, such as, fuel
management, wind, prop setting, etc. We don't approach IFR as a
challenge. With proper instrumentation, we expect it to be comfortable
with the grandkids (or if your ahead of the game - kids) in the back.
We allowed for a robust backup plan with more than one layer. If you
look closely at the suggested panels you will see 2 & 1/2 levels of
backup. The independently sensored autopilot is the half level. Note
that each subsequent level becomes simplier. My objective to the
all-in-one glass PFD is the backup becomes more complex. Typically, one
choses another similar unit as backup with the advertised swap displays
in case of failure. It requires very complex logic to do this
automatically, and there are hardware and software components added to
support this functionality which makes it less reliable. The origin of
this thinking is what the engineering department would call "scope".
They would list all the things that could go wrong with their component
and provide a recovery procedure. The fault with this scope is the pilot
is subject to any problem that occurs - not just a predefined set of PFD
problems.
Nowhere can you purchase a glass panel that is as deeply integrated into
the RV10 as our PFD. We pickup the fuel levels, flaps, door sensors, and
stall warning to minimize weight, wiring, and additional components.
The price of our product would be much more appealing if we removed the
gyro. Unfortunately, Crossbow is the only manufacturer of solid state
gyros that meets our objective of a "solid IFR platform". Since there is
only one qualifying choice I did not want our customers to shop the gyro
and attempt to save money thinking they were still purchasing a "solid
IFR platform". Perhaps, in the future there will be other suitable
choices and we could provide options. Now I must talk about gyros so you
won't believe that this is an arbitrary judgement.
Before I ordered the RV10 kit (and I am kit #29), I swore that I would
never put a blankity, blank vacuum system in another plane ... ever. So,
my approach was to create a solid state gyro that would be the crux of
an IFR panel. I purchased the magnetic sensors, accelerometers, and rate
gyros necessary to build my own gyro. After prototyping each of the
components and thinking what would be required to produce a reliable 360
degree, accurate and inexpensive gyro the answer was it is simply not
possible because of the cost of the engineering test equipment required.
You need a very accurate rate table, a temperature chamber to
characterize sensor behavior, calibrated orientation, tight production
controls, and the ability to measure and calibrate each unit shipped. It
was clearly a product for a very serious engineering company dedicated
to this purpose. This was not my intended business, so I abandoned this
effort and began shopping.
My criteria for purchase was/is:
1. Proven know-how engineering and manufacturing cabability
2. Published acuracy specifications.
3. Experienced with aircraft applications
4. Birth certificate (calibration) for each unit
5. Price
Needless to say, only Crossbow met these requirements.
Looking to the PFD's future, we offer multiple, defined components
rather than a single box. Software upgrades are simple, changing out the
entire cpu is simple, updating the display is simple, etc. Since the
purchased components have clearly defined interfaces and our
manufactured components have standard, extensible protocol links with
the display computer its relatively easy to keep improving the product.
We don't ever want to be in the position of squeezing life out of a 6.4"
display long after the market has moved on.
Regarding your specific question about the competition $10,000 under our
price: Look close, they are all VFR components. The major reason is
their gyros are of dubious quality, and do not meet the first four
purchase requirements (above). Most of these manufacturers clearly state
that they are for VFR usage - its the purchasers that streach the usage
into IFR situations. Trading money on the ground for a challenge in the
air is a bad idea.
Regarding your question about the Garmin 600 $10,000 over our price:
This package was designed to directly compete with Chelton. Its not the
best of everything, just better than Chelton. Choose a display you will
be comfortable looking at for many hours. They tilted two 6.4" displays
on end with low resolution and unknown brightness. Our display is 10.4"
with 1024 x 768 resolution and 1200 nits of brightness. These are
engineering numbers and cannot be compared with a "sunlight bright"
phase the marketing weenie penned. The visibility from an RV10 is
wonderful - but the downside is it lets in a lot of sun.
What computer are you purchasing? Does it have extra capacity for future
upgrades, or is it an economical implementation that needs a hardware
upgrade for future improvements?
I looked once again for the accuracy specifications of the Garmin gyro
with no luck. Nothing is published. I have become very hard headed on
this subject because I view the gyro as the crux of an IFR flight.
Remember that our IFR mission includes turbulence. This is when I expect
to feel comfortable and it doesn't matter if this is a lucky day or not.
Bill DeRouchey
N939SB, flying
bill@wtdaviationtechnology.com
William Curtis <wcurtis@nerv10.com> wrote:
Bill,
If you don't mind however, permit me to be the devil's advocate
for a moment. Looking through your site I see that your single panel,
single gyro EFIS system is $19,000 with an additional $3000 for an
second display. What additional does you system offer at $10,000 more
than an equivalent more established Grand Rapids system or only $10,000
less than a fully type certificated Garmin G600 system? Please don't
take this question the wrong way, only it seems on the surface, a
builder would be paying more for an equivalent experimental system that
does not yet have any track record.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.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: | Re: Lycoming IO-540 C4B5 |
Does anyone have a measurement for "big ear" and "small ear"?
Thanks,
Mike
On 2/26/07, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com> wrote:
>
> First, and the bigger issue, you will probably need new engine mount
> ears. The one we got has the big hole ears and the -10 needs the small
> hole. I know there is a technical Dynafocal 1, Dynafocal 2 and some other
> name for the different mount formats, but I don't know which is which. If
> it has the big holes, you will need to buy a set with small holes. I
> actually may have a set around here, but I would have to look for it.
>
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: Crossbow vs Pinpoint |
| From: | "Mike@Crossbow" <msmith@xbow.com> |
I just wanted to poke my head in here and provide a couple of pieces of information
for those that are considering mounting a NAV425EX in their aircraft.
1) You do NOT have to mount the unit at the CG of the aircraft as has already been
stated in this forum. We recommend in our installation manual that our customers
mount the unit as close as possible to the CG, however given the size
and nature of RV's/Lancairs a better location is aft of the baggage area. The
intent of mounting at the CG is to prevent any "lever affect", however this really
doesn't occur in such small aircraft.
2) Please note that we are currently recommending an external mount GPS antenna
(TSO'd) be used with all installations. I understand that this causes some heartache
for builders, however please note that there isn't one certified GPS
antenna made for internal installations. We believe and our testing has proven
that there is a reason for this. In theory composite aircraft should be transparent,
however our experiences have shown this to not hold completely true.
We urge all of our customers to consider the Antcom 2G15A-XS-1 antenna or a
suitable alternative called out in our service bulletin.
Sincerely,
--------
Michael Smith
Application Engineer Inertial Systems
Crossbow Technology
msmith@xbow.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97493#97493
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: | Lycoming IO-540 C4B5 |
The mounts were changed to reflect the design improvement of the IO-720
(the Big Eight) mount on DWG #63168 dated on 3/15/1966 as Change M.
There is a 31 degree angle at the center of the bolt in relation to the
base of the mount at the bolt pattern. The ID of the mount for receiving
the rubber dampener is 1.390/1.380". Forward to Aft from the face of
each washer the measurement is 2.110". The Ear should be 0.630/0620"
thick. Bonded Sandwich Assembly is Lord Part # J-9604-20 which is NOT
FURNISHED with engine. Maximum movement to snubbing is 0.27"
There is also a Lord Part #J-9613-12 and J-9613-15 which is with an ID
of 2.015/2.005" and Forward to Aft from face of each washer as 2.760".
These have a 20 degree angle to the base. Subject to change based on
bushing used. The ear should be 0.625" thick. Ask your engine
rebuilder. Maximum movement to snubbing is 0.46" and this
characteristic can create the sag at the prop hub which has been
discussed before.
Both mounts use 0.438" Close Tolerance Bolts.
John
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Lauritsen - Work
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Lycoming IO-540 C4B5
Does anyone have a measurement for "big ear" and "small ear"?
Thanks,
Mike
On 2/26/07, Jesse Saint < jesse@saintaviation.com
<mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com> > wrote:
First, and the bigger issue, you will probably need new engine mount
ears. The one we got has the big hole ears and the -10 needs the small
hole. I know there is a technical Dynafocal 1, Dynafocal 2 and some
other name for the different mount formats, but I don't know which is
which. If it has the big holes, you will need to buy a set with small
holes. I actually may have a set around here, but I would have to look
for it.
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 |
|
Many thanks to whoever "squealed" anonymously to the FAA trying to hurt
us (if you are reading this, it backfired unless you truly were trying
to help us J )
Don't know the details but- Sounds like Genesis 50:20
Pascal
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: RV10-List: FAA Meeting
Well, I am sure some of you are wondering how the meeting with the FAA
went today. I will try to get around to going into more detail for
those who want to know in the next couple of days, but the short version
is that it went extremely well. Many thanks to whoever "squealed"
anonymously to the FAA trying to hurt us (if you are reading this, it
backfired unless you truly were trying to help us J ), because it
actually helped a lot both in our understanding of what is and is not
(probably, since these rules are changing and even they don't really
know where they are going yet) appropriate, and in their understanding
more fully what we are about and how we are going about it. We will see
when the dust of all of this rule-rewriting settled how things actually
stand, but we believe we have made great strides towards complying with
the rules that are not even set yet, and there is an outside chance that
we may even be able to be a test case for helping to determine how the
rules are written/worded. Time will tell!
do not archive
Speaking of which, does anybody know if the above tag keeps the posts
out of the online forum? I have seen my DNA posts on the forum and
wondered if maybe they are removed after a certain amount of time. I
have e-mailed Matt without a reply. If they are posted there and left,
that would certainly make a difference in the amount I would be willing
to write to the list, since they truly would be archived, even when I
don't want them to be. Is if possible that having some other
punctuation touching makes the phrase unrecognized by the server?
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
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: Lycoming IO-540 C4B5 |
Here are the two pages referring to the ears from the Lycoming PC-615 parts catalog.
The D4A5 uses parts 70456 (Small Holes / Vans RV-10 Mount)
The C4B5 uses parts 72306 (Large Holes)
Jim C
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 |
|
Individuals that are compliant with FAA regulations should be a good
thing. I don't think there are many beyond the select few on the ARC
committee which know where this is going.
As Frank Paskiewicz, FAA Manager has stated, these proceedings are
"Secret and Private". We will all know soon enough when the NPRM is
unleashed upon the Amateur Kit-Building Community. You should keep your
committee members informed - in writing, as to how you feel, as they
shape the "Future Interpretation". As to quoting scriptures, I can just
see it now, "Michigan Islamo-Fascist group challenges Florida and
Central American Christians in US Supreme Court" to build aircraft for
private education and enjoyment. TSA is about to take responsibility
for screening all airline passengers I.D. and their tickets from
airlines - saving millions in airline profit and vastly increasing
delays at screening gates. Now there is even invasive x-ray that sees
through clothing. If you have never written a response to an NPRM -
learn the process. It works.
The world of Unintended Consequence is alive and well with kit builders.
Sounds like Jesse has a healthy and strong relationship with his FSDO
Airworthiness Inspectors.
John Cox
Do not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pascal
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: FAA Meeting
Many thanks to whoever "squealed" anonymously to the FAA trying to hurt
us (if you are reading this, it backfired unless you truly were trying
to help us :-) )
Don't know the details but- Sounds like Genesis 50:20
Pascal
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: RV10-List: FAA Meeting
Well, I am sure some of you are wondering how the meeting with
the FAA went today. I will try to get around to going into more detail
for those who want to know in the next couple of days, but the short
version is that it went extremely well. Many thanks to whoever
"squealed" anonymously to the FAA trying to hurt us (if you are reading
this, it backfired unless you truly were trying to help us :-) ),
because it actually helped a lot both in our understanding of what is
and is not (probably, since these rules are changing and even they don't
really know where they are going yet) appropriate, and in their
understanding more fully what we are about and how we are going about
it. We will see when the dust of all of this rule-rewriting settled how
things actually stand, but we believe we have made great strides towards
complying with the rules that are not even set yet, and there is an
outside chance that we may even be able to be a test case for helping to
determine how the rules are written/worded. Time will tell!
do not archive
Speaking of which, does anybody know if the above tag keeps the
posts out of the online forum? I have seen my DNA posts on the forum
and wondered if maybe they are removed after a certain amount of time.
I have e-mailed Matt without a reply. If they are posted there and
left, that would certainly make a difference in the amount I would be
willing to write to the list, since they truly would be archived, even
when I don't want them to be. Is if possible that having some other
punctuation touching makes the phrase unrecognized by the server?
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: | Lycoming IO-540 C4B5 |
Big holes are roughly 2". That might have been in JC's message, but I
couldn't find it in English there :-), so I measured the big holes on my
shelf. I will see if I can find the small hole ears around here. They cost
$400, so that's what I would want for them.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Lauritsen -
Work
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Lycoming IO-540 C4B5
Does anyone have a measurement for "big ear" and "small ear"?
Thanks,
Mike
On 2/26/07, Jesse Saint < jesse@saintaviation.com
<mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com> > wrote:
First, and the bigger issue, you will probably need new engine mount ears.
The one we got has the big hole ears and the -10 needs the small hole. I
know there is a technical Dynafocal 1, Dynafocal 2 and some other name for
the different mount formats, but I don't know which is which. If it has the
big holes, you will need to buy a set with small holes. I actually may have
a set around here, but I would have to look for it.
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 |
John,=0A=0AFirstly, thank you for categorizing me as "our Devil's ad
vocate."- I'll make sure to update my signature with that title!-
=0A=0ASecondly, what does "Turbulence and Unreported Icing coupled with
strong headwinds and my use of Corrective Lens (due to advancing pilot age)
in a low light situation.. " have to do with an EFIS?- I always feel I n
eed a Rosetta stone and a decoder ring to decipher you messages--I guess I'
m a little slow with them.=0A=0AAnyway, any cheap gyro can handle tur
bulence, rolls and pitch, what they can't handle is a very slow constant ba
nk turn or speedily erect after power up.- None (cheap, expensive, certif
ied or not) will do anything about "unreported icing, strong headwinds" or
lessen you reliance on the "use of corrective lenses"-those features WOULD
indeed be worth considerable more that the $10,000 price differential.- C
heaper does not automatically make an EFIS "VFR" nor does expensive make it
"IFR."- From the FAA's perspective there is no such thing as a VFR or IF
R EFIS. -All these units, Grand Rapids, Chelton (Sport), BMA, and now WTD
ALL use uncertified gyros.- Some of these gyros are better than others b
ut NONE are certified and only individual opinions make one "VFR" and anoth
er "IFR."- All indications are that WTC will be using the Crossbow 425EX
not the certified 500GA gyro. - - Bill, - Thanks again for the inform
ation. -I'll look forward to seeing your EFIS at Sun-N-Fun or OSH. -Let
us know when you have an installation manual and wiring diagrams on your w
ebsite.- I assume you will be using the ARINC 429 bus connection to/from
the 4/530 and the autopilot? - -William - "our Devil's Advocate"
=0Ahttp://wcurtis.nerv10.com/ =0A=0A---------------------------------
-------=0A=0A Turbulence and Unreported Icing coupled with strong he
adwinds and my use of Corrective Lens (due to advancing pilot age) in a low
light situation.. Now that gets my attention.- I think your thought proc
ess, research, design background and final decisions will prove to offer th
e RV-10 builders a great option to Butt up against Chelton, OP Technologies
and Garmin. -I ruled out the cheaper VFR offerings long ago.- It is do
wn to painfully thoughtful and analytic evaluation at this point.- I also
look forward to Deems' report flying behind his OP Tech screens. - Bil
l, Thanks for the investment and the answer to our Devil's Advocate. -
=0A=0AJohn Cox =0A#40600 =0A-----------------------------
-----------=0A From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:own
er-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill DeRouchey=0ASent: M
onday, February 26, 2007 1:07 PM=0ATo: rv10-list@matronics.com=0ASubj
ect: re: RV10-List: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 - Hi Willi
am- Thanks for the good question. It required me to remember all the reas
ons for each decision of each step over the last 3.5 years. Its not a short
answer. - Why is it so expensive? - I, more than any other, wo
uld like our primary flight display "PFD" to be less expensive. However, if
you look at the complete panel prices you will see that you receive all th
e high end features without the high end pricing. In the end, our price was
determined by our objective: provide a high quality, solid IFR platform. K
indly understand that "solid" means with and without turbulence. Lets disec
t this objective. - We started with the best components available, in
tegrated a display computer, and filled in the holes. Garmin 430/530 was ch
osen as one cornerstone. This unit has certifications that allow you to fil
e /G, an easy map update process, Glideslope, Localizer, GPS, and COM recei
vers. Its a mature product that you can afford. Note that most Chelton owne
rs have a G430 installed. TIP: for $500 you can get the G430 downloaded wit
h terrain capability - not TAWS, just terrain warning. ANOTHER TIP: on our
PFD we show the numbers that you typically see on the right side of the G43
0 display with map selected. Use the menu button and remove this area from
the G430 increasing your map size by 50%! - All the suggested panels
are FAA legal. - Mission is cross country IFR. This is the rule, not
the exception. Many innovations were added to support this mission, such as
, fuel management, wind, prop setting, etc. We don't approach IFR as a chal
lenge. With proper instrumentation, we expect it to be comfortable with the
grandkids (or if your ahead of the game - kids) in the back. - We al
lowed for a robust backup plan with more than one layer. If you look closel
y at the suggested panels you will see 2 & 1/2 levels of backup. The indepe
ndently sensored autopilot is the half level. Note that each subsequent lev
el becomes simplier. My objective to the all-in-one glass PFD is the backup
becomes more complex.- Typically, one choses another similar unit as bac
kup with the advertised swap displays in case of failure. It requires very
complex logic to do this automatically, and there are hardware and software
components added to support this functionality which makes it less reliabl
e. The origin of this thinking is what the engineering department would cal
l "scope". They would list all the things that could go wrong with their co
mponent and provide a recovery procedure. The fault with this scope-is th
e pilot is subject to any problem that occurs - not just a predefined set o
f PFD problems. - Nowhere can you purchase a glass panel that is as
deeply integrated into the RV10 as our PFD. We pickup the fuel levels, flap
s, door sensors, and stall warning to minimize weight, wiring, and addition
al components. - The price of our product would be much more appealin
g if we removed the gyro. Unfortunately, Crossbow is the only manufacturer
of solid state gyros that meets our objective of a "solid IFR platform". Si
nce there is only one qualifying choice I did not want our customers to sho
p the gyro and attempt to save money thinking they were still purchasing a
"solid IFR platform". Perhaps, in the future there will be other suitable c
hoices and we could provide options. Now I must talk about gyros so you won
't believe that this is an arbitrary judgement. - Before I ordered th
e RV10 kit (and I am kit #29), I swore that I would never put a blankity, b
lank vacuum system in another plane ... ever. So, my approach was to create
a solid state gyro that would be the crux of an IFR panel. I purchased the
magnetic sensors, accelerometers, and rate gyros necessary to build my own
gyro. After prototyping each of the components and thinking what would be
required to produce a reliable 360 degree, accurate and inexpensive gyro th
e answer was it is simply not possible because of the cost of the engineeri
ng test equipment required. You need a very accurate rate table, a temperat
ure chamber to characterize sensor behavior, calibrated orientation, tight
production controls, and the ability to measure and calibrate each unit shi
pped. It was clearly a product for a very serious engineering company dedic
ated to this purpose. This was not my intended business, so I abandoned thi
s effort and began shopping. - My criteria for purchase was/is: -
---------- 1. Proven know-how engineering and manufactu
ring cabability ----------- 2. Published acuracy sp
ecifications. ----------- 3. Experienced with aircr
aft applications ----------- 4. Birth certificate (
calibration) for each unit ----------- 5. Price
- Needless to say, only Crossbow met these requirements. - Looking
to the PFD's future, we offer multiple, defined components rather than a s
ingle box. Software upgrades are simple, changing out the entire cpu is sim
ple, updating the display is simple, etc. Since the purchased components ha
ve clearly defined interfaces and our manufactured components have standard
, extensible protocol links with the display computer its relatively easy t
o keep improving the product. We don't ever want to be in the position of s
queezing-life out of a 6.4" display long after the market has moved on.
- Regarding your specific question about the competition $10,000 under
our price: Look close, they are all VFR components. The major reason is th
eir gyros are of dubious quality, and do not meet the first four purchase r
equirements (above). Most of these manufacturers clearly state that they ar
e for VFR usage - its the purchasers that streach the usage into IFR situat
ions. Trading money on the ground for a challenge in the air is a bad idea.
- Regarding your question about the Garmin 600 $10,000 over our pric
e: This package was designed to directly compete with Chelton. Its not the
best of everything, just better than Chelton. Choose a display you will be
comfortable looking at for many hours. They tilted two 6.4" displays on end
with low resolution and unknown brightness. Our display is 10.4" with 1024
x 768 resolution and 1200 nits of brightness. These are engineering number
s and cannot be compared with a "sunlight bright" phase the marketing weeni
e penned. The visibility from an RV10 is wonderful - but the downside is it
lets in a lot of sun. - What computer are you purchasing? Does it ha
ve extra capacity for future upgrades, or is it an economical implementatio
n that needs a hardware upgrade for future improvements? - I looked o
nce again for the accuracy specifications of the Garmin gyro with no luck.
Nothing is published. I have become very hard headed on this subject becaus
e I view the gyro as the crux of an IFR flight. Remember that our IFR missi
on includes turbulence. This is when I expect to feel comfortable and it do
esn't matter if this is a lucky day or not. - Bill DeRouchey N939SB
, flying bill@wtdaviationtechnology.com - =0A=0AWilliam Curt
is <wcurtis@nerv10.com> wrote: Bill,=0A=0AIf you don't mind however
, permit me to be the devil's advocate for a moment.- Looking through you
r site I see that your single panel, single gyro EFIS system-is $19,000 w
ith an additional $3000 for an second display.- What additional does you
system offer at-$10,000 more than an equivalent more established Grand Ra
pids system or only $10,000 less than a fully type certificated Garmin G600
system?- Please don't take this question the wrong way, only it seems on
the surface, a builder would be paying more for an equivalent experimental
system that does not yet have any track record.=0A=0AWilliam=0Aht
================= =0A
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: | Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 |
The only other type of flight into icing I know of is Known/ Reported
Icing. Without prop and leading edge boots would any RV pilot be found
there? I hope not in my insurance pool. When the workload is heavy, a
large easy to read screen is better than a small, cheap one on the
workload at hand. KISS. It brings down planes out here all the time.
My situational awareness is improved when the data is clear, concise and
easy to process.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Curtis
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 5:20 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10
John,
Firstly, thank you for categorizing me as "our Devil's advocate." I'll
make sure to update my signature with that title!
Secondly, what does "Turbulence and Unreported Icing coupled with strong
headwinds and my use of Corrective Lens (due to advancing pilot age) in
a low light situation.... " have to do with an EFIS? I always feel I
need a Rosetta stone and a decoder ring to decipher you messages--I
guess I'm a little slow with them.
Anyway, any cheap gyro can handle turbulence, rolls and pitch, what they
can't handle is a very slow constant bank turn or speedily erect after
power up. None (cheap, expensive, certified or not) will do anything
about "unreported icing, strong headwinds" or lessen you reliance on the
"use of corrective lenses"-those features WOULD indeed be worth
considerable more that the $10,000 price differential. Cheaper does not
automatically make an EFIS "VFR" nor does expensive make it "IFR." From
the FAA's perspective there is no such thing as a VFR or IFR EFIS. All
these units, Grand Rapid s, Chelton (Sport), BMA, and now WTD ALL use
uncertified gyros. Some of these gyros are better than others but NONE
are certified and only individual opinions make one "VFR" and another
"IFR." All indications are that WTC will be using the Crossbow 425EX
not the certified 500GA gyro.
Bill,
Thanks again for the information. I'll look forward to seeing your EFIS
at Sun-N-Fun or OSH. Let us know when you have an installation manual
and wiring diagrams on your website. I assume you will be using the
ARINC 429 bus connection to/from the 4/530 and the autopilot?
William - "our Devil's Advocate"
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
________________________________
Turbulence and Unreported Icing coupled with strong headwinds and my use
of Corrective Lens (due to advancing pilot age) in a low light
situation.... Now that gets my attention. I think your thought process,
research, design background and final decisions will prove to offer the
RV-10 builders a great option to Butt up against Chelton, OP
Technologies and Garmin. I ruled out the cheaper VFR offerings long
ago. It is down to painfully thoughtful and analytic evaluation at this
point. I also look forward to Deems' report flying behind his OP Tech
screens.
Bill, Thanks for the investment and the answer to our Devil's Advocate.
John Cox
#40600
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: | Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 |
John,
You are very wrong about "any cheap gyro can handle turbulence, rolls & pitch".
I tested a gyro that was not cheap and failed miserably performing these tasks.
The problem seems to be they cannot separate the gravity vector from the
centripetal vector with any accuracy and the error compounds itself over time.
The root of this problem is you can pick out a gyro and we can joyfully debate
its accuracy through a six-pack of beer, but in the end neither of us has data.
We don't have data because they can not afford to test the unit on their own
or have not tested the unit using a certified lab, or do not like the results
after testing with a certified lab. I called an unnamed gyro-person and asked
how he tested his gyro? His answer was we strapped it down, went flying, and
it looked about right!
The pilots need to learn that without a published specification that covers accuracy
in both static and aircraft dynamic conditions they have no gyro.
I did not intend to keep the Crossbow part number a secret. Its NAV420CA-100,
their standard for experimental usage. If anyone would like I will add an option
for the certified AHRS500 or 510. Just simply did not believe folks would
pay the extra $8K (approx) for the certified unit when the experimental unit is
a close sibling.
Bill DeRouchey
N939SB, flying
bill@wtdaviationtechnology.com
William Curtis <wcurtis@nerv10.com> wrote:
John,
Firstly, thank you for categorizing me as "our Devil's advocate." I'll make sure
to update my signature with that title!
Secondly, what does "Turbulence and Unreported Icing coupled with strong headwinds
and my use of Corrective Lens (due to advancing pilot age) in a low light
situation. " have to do with an EFIS? I always feel I need a Rosetta stone and
a decoder ring to decipher you messages--I guess I'm a little slow with them.
Anyway, any cheap gyro can handle turbulence, rolls and pitch, what they can't
handle is a very slow constant bank turn or speedily erect after power up. None
(cheap, expensive, certified or not) will do anything about unreported icing,
strong headwinds or lessen you reliance on the use of corrective lensesthose
features WOULD indeed be worth considerable more that the $10,000 price differential.
Cheaper does not automatically make an EFIS "VFR" nor does expensive
make it "IFR." From the FAAs perspective there is no such thing as a VFR or
IFR EFIS. All these units, Grand Rapids, Chelton (Sport), BMA, and now WTD ALL
use uncertified gyros. Some of these gyros are better than others but NONE
are certified and only individual opinions make one "VFR" and another "IFR."
All indications are that WTC will be using the Crossbow 425EX not the certified
500GA gyro.
Bill,
Thanks again for the information. Ill look forward to seeing your EFIS at Sun-N-Fun
or OSH. Let us know when you have an installation manual and wiring diagrams
on your website. I assume you will be using the ARINC 429 bus connection
to/from the 4/530 and the autopilot?
William - "our Devils Advocate"
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
---------------------------------
Turbulence and Unreported Icing coupled with strong headwinds and my use of
Corrective Lens (due to advancing pilot age) in a low light situation. Now that
gets my attention. I think your thought process, research, design background
and final decisions will prove to offer the RV-10 builders a great option to
Butt up against Chelton, OP Technologies and Garmin. I ruled out the cheaper
VFR offerings long ago. It is down to painfully thoughtful and analytic evaluation
at this point. I also look forward to Deems report flying behind his
OP Tech screens.
Bill, Thanks for the investment and the answer to our Devils Advocate.
John Cox
#40600
---------------------------------
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill DeRouchey
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 1:07 PM
Subject: re: RV10-List: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10
Hi William-
Thanks for the good question. It required me to remember all the reasons for
each decision of each step over the last 3.5 years. Its not a short answer.
Why is it so expensive?
I, more than any other, would like our primary flight display "PFD" to be less
expensive. However, if you look at the complete panel prices you will see
that you receive all the high end features without the high end pricing. In the
end, our price was determined by our objective: provide a high quality, solid
IFR platform. Kindly understand that "solid" means with and without turbulence.
Lets disect this objective.
We started with the best components available, integrated a display computer,
and filled in the holes. Garmin 430/530 was chosen as one cornerstone. This
unit has certifications that allow you to file /G, an easy map update process,
Glideslope, Localizer, GPS, and COM receivers. Its a mature product that you
can afford. Note that most Chelton owners have a G430 installed. TIP: for $500
you can get the G430 downloaded with terrain capability - not TAWS, just terrain
warning. ANOTHER TIP: on our PFD we show the numbers that you typically see
on the right side of the G430 display with map selected. Use the menu button
and remove this area from the G430 increasing your map size by 50%!
All the suggested panels are FAA legal.
Mission is cross country IFR. This is the rule, not the exception. Many innovations
were added to support this mission, such as, fuel management, wind, prop
setting, etc. We don't approach IFR as a challenge. With proper instrumentation,
we expect it to be comfortable with the grandkids (or if your ahead of
the game - kids) in the back.
We allowed for a robust backup plan with more than one layer. If you look closely
at the suggested panels you will see 2 & 1/2 levels of backup. The independently
sensored autopilot is the half level. Note that each subsequent level
becomes simplier. My objective to the all-in-one glass PFD is the backup becomes
more complex. Typically, one choses another similar unit as backup with
the advertised swap displays in case of failure. It requires very complex logic
to do this automatically, and there are hardware and software components added
to support this functionality which makes it less reliable. The origin of this
thinking is what the engineering department would call "scope". They would
list all the things that could go wrong with their component and provide a recovery
procedure. The fault with this scope is the pilot is subject to any problem
that occurs - not just a predefined set of PFD problems.
Nowhere can you purchase a glass panel that is as deeply integrated into the
RV10 as our PFD. We pickup the fuel levels, flaps, door sensors, and stall warning
to minimize weight, wiring, and additional components.
The price of our product would be much more appealing if we removed the gyro.
Unfortunately, Crossbow is the only manufacturer of solid state gyros that
meets our objective of a "solid IFR platform". Since there is only one qualifying
choice I did not want our customers to shop the gyro and attempt to save money
thinking they were still purchasing a "solid IFR platform". Perhaps, in the
future there will be other suitable choices and we could provide options. Now
I must talk about gyros so you won't believe that this is an arbitrary judgement.
Before I ordered the RV10 kit (and I am kit #29), I swore that I would never
put a blankity, blank vacuum system in another plane ... ever. So, my approach
was to create a solid state gyro that would be the crux of an IFR panel. I
purchased the magnetic sensors, accelerometers, and rate gyros necessary to build
my own gyro. After prototyping each of the components and thinking what would
be required to produce a reliable 360 degree, accurate and inexpensive gyro
the answer was it is simply not possible because of the cost of the engineering
test equipment required. You need a very accurate rate table, a temperature
chamber to characterize sensor behavior, calibrated orientation, tight production
controls, and the ability to measure and calibrate each unit shipped. It
was clearly a product for a very serious engineering company dedicated to this
purpose. This was not my intended business, so I abandoned this effort and began
shopping.
My criteria for purchase was/is:
1. Proven know-how engineering and manufacturing cabability
2. Published acuracy specifications.
3. Experienced with aircraft applications
4. Birth certificate (calibration) for each unit
5. Price
Needless to say, only Crossbow met these requirements.
Looking to the PFD's future, we offer multiple, defined components rather than
a single box. Software upgrades are simple, changing out the entire cpu is
simple, updating the display is simple, etc. Since the purchased components have
clearly defined interfaces and our manufactured components have standard,
extensible protocol links with the display computer its relatively easy to keep
improving the product. We don't ever want to be in the position of squeezing
life out of a 6.4" display long after the market has moved on.
Regarding your specific question about the competition $10,000 under our price:
Look close, they are all VFR components. The major reason is their gyros
are of dubious quality, and do not meet the first four purchase requirements (above).
Most of these manufacturers clearly state that they are for VFR usage
- its the purchasers that streach the usage into IFR situations. Trading money
on the ground for a challenge in the air is a bad idea.
Regarding your question about the Garmin 600 $10,000 over our price: This package
was designed to directly compete with Chelton. Its not the best of everything,
just better than Chelton. Choose a display you will be comfortable looking
at for many hours. They tilted two 6.4" displays on end with low resolution
and unknown brightness. Our display is 10.4" with 1024 x 768 resolution and
1200 nits of brightness. These are engineering numbers and cannot be compared
with a "sunlight bright" phase the marketing weenie penned. The visibility from
an RV10 is wonderful - but the downside is it lets in a lot of sun.
What computer are you purchasing? Does it have extra capacity for future upgrades,
or is it an economical implementation that needs a hardware upgrade for
future improvements?
I looked once again for the accuracy specifications of the Garmin gyro with
no luck. Nothing is published. I have become very hard headed on this subject
because I view the gyro as the crux of an IFR flight. Remember that our IFR mission
includes turbulence. This is when I expect to feel comfortable and it doesn't
matter if this is a lucky day or not.
Bill DeRouchey
N939SB, flying
bill@wtdaviationtechnology.com
William Curtis <wcurtis@nerv10.com> wrote:
Bill,
If you don't mind however, permit me to be the devil's advocate for a moment.
Looking through your site I see that your single panel, single gyro EFIS system
is $19,000 with an additional $3000 for an second display. What additional
does you system offer at $10,000 more than an equivalent more established Grand
Rapids system or only $10,000 less than a fully type certificated Garmin G600
system? Please don't take this question the wrong way, only it seems on the
surface, a builder would be paying more for an equivalent experimental system
that does not yet have any track record.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 |
In a message dated 2/26/2007 1:09:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
billderou@yahoo.com writes:
"Nowhere can you purchase a glass panel that is as deeply integrated into
the RV10 as our PFD. We pickup the fuel levels, flaps, door sensors, and stall
warning to minimize weight, wiring, and additional components."
"Regarding your specific question about the competition $10,000 under our
price: Look close, they are all VFR components. The major reason is their gyros
are of dubious quality, and do not meet the first four purchase requirements"
In the interest of accuracy...
The AF-3500EE EFIS/Engine Monitor has the inputs for the fuel levels, door
switches, aileron trim, elevator trim,flap position, and AOA stall warning all
for the RV-10. Our original AF-2500 engine monitor in both factory RV-10's
has always had the flap, trim, and door switch warnings.
The AF-3500 & AF-3400 EFIS use an AHRS that is based on the Certified
Crossbow 500 AHRS.
An AF-3500EE EFIS/Engine Monitor/AOA is deeply integrated into Van's
personal RV-10 panel, for around $8,000 including all the engine sensors.
Sincerely,
Rob Hickman
_www.Advanced-Flight-Systems.com_ (http://www.Advanced-Flight-Systems.com)
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
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: | Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 |
My last response was to William. Sorry John.
Bill
Bill DeRouchey <billderou@yahoo.com> wrote:
John,
You are very wrong about "any cheap gyro can handle turbulence, rolls & pitch".
I tested a gyro that was not cheap and failed miserably performing these tasks.
The problem seems to be they cannot separate the gravity vector from the
centripetal vector with any accuracy and the error compounds itself over time.
The root of this problem is you can pick out a gyro and we can joyfully debate
its accuracy through a six-pack of beer, but in the end neither of us has data.
We don't have data because they can not afford to test the unit on their own
or have not tested the unit using a certified lab, or do not like the results
after testing with a certified lab. I called an unnamed gyro-person and asked
how he tested his gyro? His answer was we strapped it down, went flying, and
it looked about right!
The pilots need to learn that without a published specification that covers accuracy
in both static and aircraft dynamic conditions they have no gyro.
I did not intend to keep the Crossbow part number a secret. Its NAV420CA-100,
their standard for experimental usage. If anyone would like I will add an option
for the certified AHRS500 or 510. Just simply did not believe folks would
pay the extra $8K (approx) for the certified unit when the experimental unit is
a close sibling.
Bill DeRouchey
N939SB, flying
bill@wtdaviationtechnology.com
William Curtis <wcurtis@nerv10.com> wrote:
John,
Firstly, thank you for categorizing me as "our Devil's advocate." I'll make sure
to update my signature with that title!
Secondly, what does "Turbulence and Unreported Icing coupled with strong headwinds
and my use of Corrective Lens (due to advancing pilot age) in a low light
situation. " have to do with an EFIS? I always feel I need a Rosetta stone and
a decoder ring to decipher you messages--I guess I'm a little slow with them.
Anyway, any cheap gyro can handle turbulence, rolls and pitch, what they can't
handle is a very slow constant bank turn or speedily erect after power up. None
(cheap, expensive, certified or not) will do anything about unreported icing,
strong headwinds or lessen you reliance on the use of corrective lensesthose
features WOULD indeed be worth considerable more that the $10,000 price differential.
Cheaper does not automatically make an EFIS "VFR" nor does expensive
make it "IFR." From the FAAs perspective there is no such thing as a VFR or
IFR EFIS. All these units, Grand Rapids, Chelton (Sport), BMA, and now WTD ALL
use uncertified gyros. Some of these gyros are better than others but NONE
are certified and only individual opinions make one "VFR" and another "IFR."
All indications are that WTC will be using the Crossbow 425EX not the certified
500GA gyro.
Bill,
Thanks again for the information. Ill look forward to seeing your EFIS at Sun-N-Fun
or OSH. Let us know when you have an installation manual and wiring diagrams
on your website. I assume you will be using the ARINC 429 bus connection
to/from the 4/530 and the autopilot?
William - "our Devils Advocate"
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
---------------------------------
Turbulence and Unreported Icing coupled with strong headwinds and my use of
Corrective Lens (due to advancing pilot age) in a low light situation. Now that
gets my attention. I think your thought process, research, design background
and final decisions will prove to offer the RV-10 builders a great option to
Butt up against Chelton, OP Technologies and Garmin. I ruled out the cheaper
VFR offerings long ago. It is down to painfully thoughtful and analytic evaluation
at this point. I also look forward to Deems report flying behind his
OP Tech screens.
Bill, Thanks for the investment and the answer to our Devils Advocate.
John Cox
#40600
---------------------------------
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill DeRouchey
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 1:07 PM
Subject: re: RV10-List: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10
Hi William-
Thanks for the good question. It required me to remember all the reasons for
each decision of each step over the last 3.5 years. Its not a short answer.
Why is it so expensive?
I, more than any other, would like our primary flight display "PFD" to be less
expensive. However, if you look at the complete panel prices you will see
that you receive all the high end features without the high end pricing. In the
end, our price was determined by our objective: provide a high quality, solid
IFR platform. Kindly understand that "solid" means with and without turbulence.
Lets disect this objective.
We started with the best components available, integrated a display computer,
and filled in the holes. Garmin 430/530 was chosen as one cornerstone. This
unit has certifications that allow you to file /G, an easy map update process,
Glideslope, Localizer, GPS, and COM receivers. Its a mature product that you
can afford. Note that most Chelton owners have a G430 installed. TIP: for $500
you can get the G430 downloaded with terrain capability - not TAWS, just terrain
warning. ANOTHER TIP: on our PFD we show the numbers that you typically see
on the right side of the G430 display with map selected. Use the menu button
and remove this area from the G430 increasing your map size by 50%!
All the suggested panels are FAA legal.
Mission is cross country IFR. This is the rule, not the exception. Many innovations
were added to support this mission, such as, fuel management, wind, prop
setting, etc. We don't approach IFR as a challenge. With proper instrumentation,
we expect it to be comfortable with the grandkids (or if your ahead of
the game - kids) in the back.
We allowed for a robust backup plan with more than one layer. If you look closely
at the suggested panels you will see 2 & 1/2 levels of backup. The independently
sensored autopilot is the half level. Note that each subsequent level
becomes simplier. My objective to the all-in-one glass PFD is the backup becomes
more complex. Typically, one choses another similar unit as backup with
the advertised swap displays in case of failure. It requires very complex logic
to do this automatically, and there are hardware and software components added
to support this functionality which makes it less reliable. The origin of this
thinking is what the engineering department would call "scope". They would
list all the things that could go wrong with their component and provide a recovery
procedure. The fault with this scope is the pilot is subject to any problem
that occurs - not just a predefined set of PFD problems.
Nowhere can you purchase a glass panel that is as deeply integrated into the
RV10 as our PFD. We pickup the fuel levels, flaps, door sensors, and stall warning
to minimize weight, wiring, and additional components.
The price of our product would be much more appealing if we removed the gyro.
Unfortunately, Crossbow is the only manufacturer of solid state gyros that
meets our objective of a "solid IFR platform". Since there is only one qualifying
choice I did not want our customers to shop the gyro and attempt to save money
thinking they were still purchasing a "solid IFR platform". Perhaps, in the
future there will be other suitable choices and we could provide options. Now
I must talk about gyros so you won't believe that this is an arbitrary judgement.
Before I ordered the RV10 kit (and I am kit #29), I swore that I would never
put a blankity, blank vacuum system in another plane ... ever. So, my approach
was to create a solid state gyro that would be the crux of an IFR panel. I
purchased the magnetic sensors, accelerometers, and rate gyros necessary to build
my own gyro. After prototyping each of the components and thinking what would
be required to produce a reliable 360 degree, accurate and inexpensive gyro
the answer was it is simply not possible because of the cost of the engineering
test equipment required. You need a very accurate rate table, a temperature
chamber to characterize sensor behavior, calibrated orientation, tight production
controls, and the ability to measure and calibrate each unit shipped. It
was clearly a product for a very serious engineering company dedicated to this
purpose. This was not my intended business, so I abandoned this effort and began
shopping.
My criteria for purchase was/is:
1. Proven know-how engineering and manufacturing cabability
2. Published acuracy specifications.
3. Experienced with aircraft applications
4. Birth certificate (calibration) for each unit
5. Price
Needless to say, only Crossbow met these requirements.
Looking to the PFD's future, we offer multiple, defined components rather than
a single box. Software upgrades are simple, changing out the entire cpu is
simple, updating the display is simple, etc. Since the purchased components have
clearly defined interfaces and our manufactured components have standard,
extensible protocol links with the display computer its relatively easy to keep
improving the product. We don't ever want to be in the position of squeezing
life out of a 6.4" display long after the market has moved on.
Regarding your specific question about the competition $10,000 under our price:
Look close, they are all VFR components. The major reason is their gyros
are of dubious quality, and do not meet the first four purchase requirements (above).
Most of these manufacturers clearly state that they are for VFR usage
- its the purchasers that streach the usage into IFR situations. Trading money
on the ground for a challenge in the air is a bad idea.
Regarding your question about the Garmin 600 $10,000 over our price: This package
was designed to directly compete with Chelton. Its not the best of everything,
just better than Chelton. Choose a display you will be comfortable looking
at for many hours. They tilted two 6.4" displays on end with low resolution
and unknown brightness. Our display is 10.4" with 1024 x 768 resolution and
1200 nits of brightness. These are engineering numbers and cannot be compared
with a "sunlight bright" phase the marketing weenie penned. The visibility from
an RV10 is wonderful - but the downside is it lets in a lot of sun.
What computer are you purchasing? Does it have extra capacity for future upgrades,
or is it an economical implementation that needs a hardware upgrade for
future improvements?
I looked once again for the accuracy specifications of the Garmin gyro with
no luck. Nothing is published. I have become very hard headed on this subject
because I view the gyro as the crux of an IFR flight. Remember that our IFR mission
includes turbulence. This is when I expect to feel comfortable and it doesn't
matter if this is a lucky day or not.
Bill DeRouchey
N939SB, flying
bill@wtdaviationtechnology.com
William Curtis <wcurtis@nerv10.com> wrote:
Bill,
If you don't mind however, permit me to be the devil's advocate for a moment.
Looking through your site I see that your single panel, single gyro EFIS system
is $19,000 with an additional $3000 for an second display. What additional
does you system offer at $10,000 more than an equivalent more established Grand
Rapids system or only $10,000 less than a fully type certificated Garmin G600
system? Please don't take this question the wrong way, only it seems on the
surface, a builder would be paying more for an equivalent experimental system
that does not yet have any track record.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
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: | Hole plugs for the baggage door |
What is everyone doing for filling the 1.5" hole in the baggage door behind
the lock. Did someone have to buy a bag of 50 snap caps and needs to get
rid of them one at a time or did you just found a convenient source locally
for snap caps? Please don't tell me that one came with your kit.
Nick (#40015, starting on cabin top)
nick@nleonard.com
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! --
|