---------------------------------------------------------- RV10-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 02/26/07: 28 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:31:21 AM PST US From: "Russell Daves" Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:59:28 AM PST US From: dc71@netspace.net.au Subject: RE: RV10-List: Wiring 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." : > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:56:09 AM PST US From: Niko Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 =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 =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" =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" =0A> To: =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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:27:44 AM PST US From: "Dave Saylor" 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. ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 10:58:10 AM PST US From: "Jae Chang" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:03:49 AM PST US From: Jeff Carpenter Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:08:36 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: RE: RV10-List: fiberglass course I would be interested, but the date would impact my availability. > > From: "Dave Saylor" > Date: 2007/02/26 Mon PM 01:24:02 EST > To: > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:12:38 AM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: fiberglass course From: "jim berry" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:33:32 AM PST US From: "John Jessen" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:42:49 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: fiberglass course From: "John W. Cox" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:48:26 PM PST US From: "Jesse Saint" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:48:26 PM PST US From: "Jesse Saint" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:07:16 PM PST US From: Bill DeRouchey 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:31:01 PM PST US From: Bill DeRouchey Subject: re: RV10-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:42:26 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 From: "John W. Cox" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:35:34 PM PST US From: "Mike Lauritsen - Work" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:51:31 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: Crossbow vs Pinpoint From: "Mike@Crossbow" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:31:14 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Lycoming IO-540 C4B5 From: "John W. Cox" 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 > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:47:46 PM PST US From: "Pascal" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:30:44 PM PST US From: Subject: Re: RE: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:59:40 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: FAA Meeting From: "John W. Cox" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:13:33 PM PST US From: "Jesse Saint" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:17:19 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 From: "William Curtis" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:50:41 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 From: "John W. Cox" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:06:08 PM PST US From: Bill DeRouchey Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:13:00 PM PST US From: RobHickman@aol.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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)


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 08:37:40 PM PST US From: Bill DeRouchey Subject: RE: RV10-List: Glass Primary Flight Displays for RV-10 My last response was to William. Sorry John. Bill Bill DeRouchey 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:23:20 PM PST US From: "Nick Leonard" Subject: RV10-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv10-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV10-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv10-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv10-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.