Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:47 AM - FW: Jack photos (gary)
2. 06:22 AM - Re: Wing Root Connectors (Niko)
3. 08:16 AM - Re: FW: Jack photos (Deems Davis)
4. 08:19 AM - Re: FW: Jack photos (linn Walters)
5. 08:22 AM - Flying to Tucson (Scott Schmidt)
6. 08:51 AM - Re: FW: Jack photos (John Jessen)
7. 09:03 AM - Re: FW: Jack photos (gary)
8. 09:10 AM - Re: Flutter at altitude (James K Hovis)
9. 09:24 AM - Re: FW: Jack photos (John Jessen)
10. 10:07 AM - Re: Flutter at altitude (Phil White)
11. 10:23 AM - Re: Flutter at altitude (John W. Cox)
12. 10:36 AM - Re: Flying to Tucson (Dj Merrill)
13. 02:54 PM - Re: Flutter at altitude (Robert Wright)
14. 03:59 PM - Interior paint! (John Gonzalez)
15. 04:19 PM - Re: Wing Root Connectors (John Testement)
16. 06:22 PM - Re: Interior paint! (rtitsworth)
17. 08:40 PM - Re: Interior paint! (John Gonzalez)
18. 08:52 PM - QB Wings (Dave Leikam)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
_____
From: Gary Specketer [mailto:gspecketer@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:38 AM
Subject: FW: Jack photos
Here are some pictures of a simple jack. It can be carried on the plane and
weighs only a few ounces. It consists of a 24" cable that is dropped
between the break disc and the wheel pant mounting plate. For your home
base you can get fancier for the blocks and lever, but this loop allows you
to have it with the plane at all times.
Gary <http://graphics.hotmail.com/emsmile.gif>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing Root Connectors |
I am going to use the Series 2 for the autopilot servo and Series 1 for the
Lights etc as you mention. Thanks for the info.=0A=0ANiko=0A40188=0Ado no
t archive=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Jesse Saint <jesse@sa
intaviation.com>=0ATo: rv10-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, March 27, 2
007 3:56:38 PM=0ASubject: RE: RV10-List: Wing Root Connectors=0A=0A=0AThe o
ne that Stein sells for $31 or so. It seems to work great with the open pi
ns, which Series 1 CPC=92s are. If you are going to have all small wires,
then going with Series 2 is =93better=94 because they have barrel pins, but
then you have to do something else with your strobes, landing lights, pito
t heat, etc, so you are really stuck with the Series 1 for the wing root.
Stein sells it as a crimper for Molex type pins, which the CPC=92s look lik
e, but are better. Also, there are 3-4 different qualify of CPC pins and I
get the best or second best of two sizes, 18-16 and 24-20. The pins are t
he most expensive part of the system (and arguably by far the most importan
t).=0A =0AJesse Saint=0ASaint Aviation, Inc.=0Ajesse@saintaviation.com=0Aww
w.saintaviation.com=0ACell: 352-427-0285=0AFax: 815-377-3694=0A=0A=0A=0AFro
m: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matr
onics.com] On Behalf Of Niko=0ASent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:56 AM=0ATo:
rv10-list@matronics.com=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List: Wing Root Connectors=0A
=0AJohn=0A =0AWhich crimping tool did you use?=0A =0ANiko=0A40188=0A----- O
riginal Message ----=0AFrom: John Testement <jwt@roadmapscoaching.com>=0ATo
: rv10-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 9:16:11 PM=0ASub
ject: RE: RV10-List: Wing Root Connectors=0A--> RV10-List message posted by
: "John Testement" <jwt@roadmapscoaching.com>=0A=0AI used the CPC connector
s and really like them. Got them from Mouser. Here=0Aare the art numbers"
=0A=0A571-2060364 4.260 =0A AMP Series 1 Two Pie
=0A RECEPTACLE 16 PIN =0A=0A571-2060371 2.820
=0A AMP Series 1 CPC Cir=0A PLUG 16 POSITION =0A=0A571-6
61033 0.360 =0A AMP Series 1 CPC Cir=0A
PIN 24-20 =0AThey also have larger AWG pins=0A=0A571-661053
0.430 =0A AMP Series 1 CPC Cir=0A SOC
KET TERM 24-20 =0A=0A571-2060701 3.20=0A AMP CPC
Accessories =0A STD CABLE CLAMP 17 =0A=0AI ended up using 2 conn
ectors on one wing after adding 2 outside air probes=0Aand 2 magnatometers
=0A=0AJohn Testement=0Ajwt@roadmapscoaching.com=0A40321=0ARichmond , VA=0AP
aint prep and LOTS of misc stuff=0Ado not archive=0A=0A=0A-----Original Mes
sage-----=0AFrom: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com=0A[mailto:owner-rv10
-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Hein=0ASent: Saturday, March
24, 2007 2:21 PM=0ATo: rv10-list@matronics.com=0ASubject: RV10-List: Wing
l.net>=0A=0AAnyone using any wing root connectors (between inboard section
of the wing=0Aand the fuselage) for the wiring?=0A=0AIf you are, or have th
ought about using them, which ones are you using?=0A=0AI have already decid
ed to have connectors there, so that decision is made=0Aalready. I am just
at a loss for what is "standard" for connectors there.=0A=0A-Jim 40384 (60
Degrees F today, expecting 4" snow tonight... Isn't New=0AEngland wonderful
?)=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A--=0A4:36 PM=0A=0A=0A-- =0A4:36 =0A =0A =0A =0A=0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List=0A=0A=0A=0Ahttp://for
========
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FW: Jack photos |
Gary, what a great and simple idea!
THANKS
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
http://deemsrv10.com/
Do Not Archive
gary wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FW: Jack photos |
Now that's the slickest thing I've seen in a long while!!!
Amazing how the simplest things escape us!
Linn
do not archive
gary wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Gary Specketer [mailto:gspecketer@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:38 AM
> To: speckter@comcast.net
> Subject: FW: Jack photos
>
>
>
> Here are some pictures of a simple jack. It can be carried on the
> plane and weighs only a few ounces. It consists of a 24" cable that
> is dropped between the break disc and the wheel pant mounting plate.
> For your home base you can get fancier for the blocks and lever, but
> this loop allows you to have it with the plane at all times.
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Flying to Tucson |
I'm going to be flying to Tucson this afternoon if I can get a break in this weather,
if not I will be going down tomorrow. I will be at Tucson International
until Sunday. I know the last time I came down there were a few that wanted
to know. I am planning on parking at Premier Aviation right now. If anyone
building wanted to come by and check the plane out for any reason let me know
I'm sure I could arrange it.
Right now it is snowing outside my office window. Not the answer I was looking
for from the weather gods today. Who makes that icing package for the -10 again?
Feel free to call my cell phone anytime this week or text me.
Scott Schmidt
Tronco Energy
Office 801-990-1252
Cell 801-718-1277
Fax 801-990-1256
scottmschmidt@yahoo.com
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
What a great idea! Looks like it might be a little unsteady side to side.
Is that an issue at all?
John Jessen
40328
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: FW: Jack photos
Now that's the slickest thing I've seen in a long while!!!
Amazing how the simplest things escape us!
Linn
do not archive
gary wrote:
_____
From: Gary Specketer [mailto:gspecketer@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:38 AM
Subject: FW: Jack photos
Here are some pictures of a simple jack. It can be carried on the plane and
weighs only a few ounces. It consists of a 24" cable that is dropped
between the break disc and the wheel pant mounting plate. For your home
base you can get fancier for the blocks and lever, but this loop allows you
to have it with the plane at all times.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Stability is not an issue. Actually without the wing on I can lift the
plane with just a 3 foot board. By the way I used a 3/32 cable and had to
flatten the nicropress slightly to get it to slide through after I put on
the clear shrink tube.
Gary
40274
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:50 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: FW: Jack photos
What a great idea! Looks like it might be a little unsteady side to side.
Is that an issue at all?
John Jessen
40328
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: FW: Jack photos
Now that's the slickest thing I've seen in a long while!!!
Amazing how the simplest things escape us!
Linn
do not archive
gary wrote:
_____
From: Gary Specketer [mailto:gspecketer@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:38 AM
Subject: FW: Jack photos
Here are some pictures of a simple jack. It can be carried on the plane and
weighs only a few ounces. It consists of a 24" cable that is dropped
between the break disc and the wheel pant mounting plate. For your home
base you can get fancier for the blocks and lever, but this loop allows you
to have it with the plane at all times.
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 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flutter at altitude |
John,
I am an aerospace engineer (work for a large midwestern producer of
many types of aircraft that'll remain nameless at this time...) and as
you know I've been lurking and commenting on this issue every once in
a while. Part 23.629 covers flutter for certifying small aircraft. In
that subpart, you have several methods to show compliance, mainly
either flight testing and ground vibration testing or analysis by a
few methods. One is compliance with Engineering Report No. 45 if the
Vd is less than 260 kts. I can't find that report on line to see
what's entailed. Testing and analysis has to show the airframe free of
flutter up to a speed of equal to Vd. Structural stiffness and mass
balance of control surfaces affect flutter limits more than anything.
Looking at the overall design of the RV-10, it is very similar to
other aircraft that have been shown to be free from flutter within
speed ranges similar to RV-10 limits (statistical analysis). Also,
Appendix A of part 23 gives some simplified formulas for compliance on
conventional light aircraft under 6,000#, which the RV-10 definitly
fits within. Speeds to be used for the V-n diagram are given based on
w/s and load factor. A minimum Vd can be calculated as 24 * sqrt(n1
*(w/s)) in kts. This is 199.83 kts and 230 mph plugging in 3.8g for n1
and the Van's gross w/s.
Bottom line is the Feds want you to show that your airframe is free
from flutter up to a certain speed based on w/s and load factor. You
can test for higher speeds if you wish, but a conservative approach is
to keep the speed close to the required minimum.
Kevin Hovis.
On 3/27/07, John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
> I waste too much time now on eight other dissimilar sites, but I can
> surmise the discussion must be interesting.
>
>
> Ken Scott rehashed his ole RVator article to get into Kitplanes as a
> contributing author. Few readers have noticed that Ken and VANS is
> deeply concerned (more than any other kit company) on Flutter. With
> 5,000 flying... they should know. Let's see 71 out of 5000, that is
> less than 2% and our RV-10s are considerably heavier, more powerful with
> more useful load. I conclude they are a different cat all together. Is
> Ken warning us of a design flaw(s)? Could it be weight reduction issues
> based on a reduced rib count, thin skin or flimsy design? I think not.
> but Chicken Little sure has me looking to the sky for falling parts.
> Most RV-10 Builders would rather give up an arm than stop drinking the
> Kool aid and research such a possibility.
>
>
> I am pursuing with several Aeronautical Engineers who write regular
> stories, what things can be improved on the RV-10 to reduce the risk of
> Flutter and allow greater actual (IAS at the service ceiling) airspeeds
> like many other kit built aircraft. I still don't know how we did it in
> WWII with fabric covered control surfaces. I understand clearly that the
> Lurkers are now scurrying to VAN to report such blasphemy but I was
> reflecting that just this morning - In the last three years, little has
> been done to improve the written instructions, address the known issues
> brought by this group and any indication that the existing product could
> ever be improved upon. I think VAN needs a panel of builders who have
> built and now fly the 10 to guide such an improvement process.
> Re-reading about flutter just get's my heart jumping like a butterfly.
>
>
> All of the benefits I have seen have been through open minds, open
> discussion, sharing of build techniques and those willing to stick their
> necks out to improve the final quality of a Great kit - the RV-10. How
> many have recently viewed Dan's site for total accidents and studied the
> NTSB reports on those that were fatals? It is a sick thought... just
> like Flutter and just a valuable.
>
>
> I for one declare the Kitplane article - clear propaganda and challenge
> the other kit component manufacturers sitting on VANS 51% Rewrite
> Committee to fess up they are placing their owners at risk with speeds
> greater than our beloved RV-10s. They don't have 5,000 flying, they
> don't discuss flutter and they should as well. With the understanding
> can come an increase in design improvement with speed, altitude and
> economy to boot. It sure got attention though.
>
>
> Could I have another glass, please? I'll go back to reading the
> instructions or taking a long nap now.
>
>
> John C.
>
>
> PS - John, no one has placed a price on that cheap Beech of Tom's, so if
> you are interested, I have a 50% interest in a Beech A-36 to get you
> through the build process at Lenhardt's Airpark.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:28 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Flutter at altitude
>
>
> Most of you are probably watching the TAS / IAS flutter thread on the
> generic RV Matronics site. Some of you have already weighed in. My
> question for RV-10 flyers, has anyone come up with a "at altitude IAS
> speed limitation" chart? Is anyone thinking about such? In essence,
> IAS Vne for 10k, 12k, 14k, 16k, 18k?
>
>
> John (how in the heck did you guys rivet the spar to the trim tabs)
> Jessen
>
> #40328
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
That's right. The other wheel is on the ground, so side-to-side movement,
if any, is a none factor.
John
40328
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gary
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: FW: Jack photos
Stability is not an issue. Actually without the wing on I can lift the
plane with just a 3 foot board. By the way I used a 3/32 cable and had to
flatten the nicropress slightly to get it to slide through after I put on
the clear shrink tube.
Gary
40274
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:50 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: FW: Jack photos
What a great idea! Looks like it might be a little unsteady side to side.
Is that an issue at all?
John Jessen
40328
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: FW: Jack photos
Now that's the slickest thing I've seen in a long while!!!
Amazing how the simplest things escape us!
Linn
do not archive
gary wrote:
_____
From: Gary Specketer [mailto:gspecketer@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:38 AM
Subject: FW: Jack photos
Here are some pictures of a simple jack. It can be carried on the plane and
weighs only a few ounces. It consists of a 24" cable that is dropped
between the break disc and the wheel pant mounting plate. For your home
base you can get fancier for the blocks and lever, but this loop allows you
to have it with the plane at all times.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flutter at altitude |
Ran a quick Excel plot of the factors listed by Werner, and produced the
following:
RV-10 VNE speeds
ALT IAS-mph
0 230.0
4 216.6
6 216.5
8 203.9
10 197.6
12 191.5
14 185.4
16 179.4
18 173.7
20 168.1
22 162.8
24 157.6
or print from the attached Excel file.
Phil White #40220 (doors)
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Flutter at altitude |
Timely and valuable insight - Bravo. A great example of the value of
this list. For those still thinking that control surfaces don't need no
stinking balancing. Contact Kevin for a professional's unbiased
opinion. As an A&P it is always to be done without exception. It's done
after manufacture, its done after paint, its done after a major repair
or alteration. Now to get all of you the simple process as to how to
balance a control surface. Just one of the steps to reduce the risks of
flutter - Balanced control surfaces.
Flaps, Ailerons, Elevator and Rudder.
I don't need 260 knots, but I would love 200 knots at altitude and
appreciate the meat (kernels of useful info) you have offered to go with
the conversation of Flutter - now published twice.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Flutter at altitude
<james.k.hovis@gmail.com>
John,
I am an aerospace engineer (work for a large midwestern producer of
many types of aircraft that'll remain nameless at this time...) and as
you know I've been lurking and commenting on this issue every once in
a while. Part 23.629 covers flutter for certifying small aircraft. In
that subpart, you have several methods to show compliance, mainly
either flight testing and ground vibration testing or analysis by a
few methods. One is compliance with Engineering Report No. 45 if the
Vd is less than 260 kts. I can't find that report on line to see
what's entailed. Testing and analysis has to show the airframe free of
flutter up to a speed of equal to Vd. Structural stiffness and mass
balance of control surfaces affect flutter limits more than anything.
Looking at the overall design of the RV-10, it is very similar to
other aircraft that have been shown to be free from flutter within
speed ranges similar to RV-10 limits (statistical analysis). Also,
Appendix A of part 23 gives some simplified formulas for compliance on
conventional light aircraft under 6,000#, which the RV-10 definitly
fits within. Speeds to be used for the V-n diagram are given based on
w/s and load factor. A minimum Vd can be calculated as 24 * sqrt(n1
*(w/s)) in kts. This is 199.83 kts and 230 mph plugging in 3.8g for n1
and the Van's gross w/s.
Bottom line is the Feds want you to show that your airframe is free
from flutter up to a certain speed based on w/s and load factor. You
can test for higher speeds if you wish, but a conservative approach is
to keep the speed close to the required minimum.
Kevin Hovis.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flying to Tucson |
Scott Schmidt wrote:
>
> Right now it is snowing outside my office window. Not the answer I was
> looking for from the weather gods today. Who makes that icing package
> for the -10 again?
Here you go:
<http://www.rddent.com/>
RDDs primary systems are an electro-thermal airframe and prop de-icing
system called Therm-X <http://www.rddent.com/products.html> and a
highly-evolved redundant electrical system called Electri-X. Systems
are currently available for Lancair models, with an RV-10 system nearing
completion.
-Dj
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flutter at altitude |
Sounds like we need to convice all of our EFIS manufacturers to write a software
update calculating a "barber pole" for the higher altitude TASs at DA.
Rob Wright
#392
Fuse - need to paint the interior soon - getting hot!
----- Original Message ----
From: James K Hovis <james.k.hovis@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:10:25 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Flutter at altitude
John,
I am an aerospace engineer (work for a large midwestern producer of
many types of aircraft that'll remain nameless at this time...) and as
you know I've been lurking and commenting on this issue every once in
a while. Part 23.629 covers flutter for certifying small aircraft. In
that subpart, you have several methods to show compliance, mainly
either flight testing and ground vibration testing or analysis by a
few methods. One is compliance with Engineering Report No. 45 if the
Vd is less than 260 kts. I can't find that report on line to see
what's entailed. Testing and analysis has to show the airframe free of
flutter up to a speed of equal to Vd. Structural stiffness and mass
balance of control surfaces affect flutter limits more than anything.
Looking at the overall design of the RV-10, it is very similar to
other aircraft that have been shown to be free from flutter within
speed ranges similar to RV-10 limits (statistical analysis). Also,
Appendix A of part 23 gives some simplified formulas for compliance on
conventional light aircraft under 6,000#, which the RV-10 definitly
fits within. Speeds to be used for the V-n diagram are given based on
w/s and load factor. A minimum Vd can be calculated as 24 * sqrt(n1
*(w/s)) in kts. This is 199.83 kts and 230 mph plugging in 3.8g for n1
and the Van's gross w/s.
Bottom line is the Feds want you to show that your airframe is free
from flutter up to a certain speed based on w/s and load factor. You
can test for higher speeds if you wish, but a conservative approach is
to keep the speed close to the required minimum.
Kevin Hovis.
On 3/27/07, John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
> I waste too much time now on eight other dissimilar sites, but I can
> surmise the discussion must be interesting.
>
>
> Ken Scott rehashed his ole RVator article to get into Kitplanes as a
> contributing author. Few readers have noticed that Ken and VANS is
> deeply concerned (more than any other kit company) on Flutter. With
> 5,000 flying... they should know. Let's see 71 out of 5000, that is
> less than 2% and our RV-10s are considerably heavier, more powerful with
> more useful load. I conclude they are a different cat all together. Is
> Ken warning us of a design flaw(s)? Could it be weight reduction issues
> based on a reduced rib count, thin skin or flimsy design? I think not.
> but Chicken Little sure has me looking to the sky for falling parts.
> Most RV-10 Builders would rather give up an arm than stop drinking the
> Kool aid and research such a possibility.
>
>
> I am pursuing with several Aeronautical Engineers who write regular
> stories, what things can be improved on the RV-10 to reduce the risk of
> Flutter and allow greater actual (IAS at the service ceiling) airspeeds
> like many other kit built aircraft. I still don't know how we did it in
> WWII with fabric covered control surfaces. I understand clearly that the
> Lurkers are now scurrying to VAN to report such blasphemy but I was
> reflecting that just this morning - In the last three years, little has
> been done to improve the written instructions, address the known issues
> brought by this group and any indication that the existing product could
> ever be improved upon. I think VAN needs a panel of builders who have
> built and now fly the 10 to guide such an improvement process.
> Re-reading about flutter just get's my heart jumping like a butterfly.
>
>
> All of the benefits I have seen have been through open minds, open
> discussion, sharing of build techniques and those willing to stick their
> necks out to improve the final quality of a Great kit - the RV-10. How
> many have recently viewed Dan's site for total accidents and studied the
> NTSB reports on those that were fatals? It is a sick thought... just
> like Flutter and just a valuable.
>
>
> I for one declare the Kitplane article - clear propaganda and challenge
> the other kit component manufacturers sitting on VANS 51% Rewrite
> Committee to fess up they are placing their owners at risk with speeds
> greater than our beloved RV-10s. They don't have 5,000 flying, they
> don't discuss flutter and they should as well. With the understanding
> can come an increase in design improvement with speed, altitude and
> economy to boot. It sure got attention though.
>
>
> Could I have another glass, please? I'll go back to reading the
> instructions or taking a long nap now.
>
>
> John C.
>
>
> PS - John, no one has placed a price on that cheap Beech of Tom's, so if
> you are interested, I have a 50% interest in a Beech A-36 to get you
> through the build process at Lenhardt's Airpark.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:28 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Flutter at altitude
>
>
> Most of you are probably watching the TAS / IAS flutter thread on the
> generic RV Matronics site. Some of you have already weighed in. My
> question for RV-10 flyers, has anyone come up with a "at altitude IAS
> speed limitation" chart? Is anyone thinking about such? In essence,
> IAS Vne for 10k, 12k, 14k, 16k, 18k?
>
>
> John (how in the heck did you guys rivet the spar to the trim tabs)
> Jessen
>
> #40328
>
>
Get your own web address.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
As for painting the interior, just want to let you all know that I painted
my interior with Zolatone using two different colors and the results were
quite nice. The tunnel cover, the aft wall and the roof will be a different
color than the rest.
My plane will be a fairly bare bones transport tool, but the results with
the paint are really clean and it should be very durable and stain proof.
Only cloth will be on the seats and the armrests.
John G. 409 Do Not Archive
>From: Robert Wright <flywrights@yahoo.com>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Flutter at altitude
>Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Sounds like we need to convice all of our EFIS manufacturers to write a
>software update calculating a "barber pole" for the higher altitude TASs at
>DA.
>
>Rob Wright
>#392
>Fuse - need to paint the interior soon - getting hot!
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: James K Hovis <james.k.hovis@gmail.com>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:10:25 AM
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Flutter at altitude
>
>
>
>John,
> I am an aerospace engineer (work for a large midwestern producer of
>many types of aircraft that'll remain nameless at this time...) and as
>you know I've been lurking and commenting on this issue every once in
>a while. Part 23.629 covers flutter for certifying small aircraft. In
>that subpart, you have several methods to show compliance, mainly
>either flight testing and ground vibration testing or analysis by a
>few methods. One is compliance with Engineering Report No. 45 if the
>Vd is less than 260 kts. I can't find that report on line to see
>what's entailed. Testing and analysis has to show the airframe free of
>flutter up to a speed of equal to Vd. Structural stiffness and mass
>balance of control surfaces affect flutter limits more than anything.
>Looking at the overall design of the RV-10, it is very similar to
>other aircraft that have been shown to be free from flutter within
>speed ranges similar to RV-10 limits (statistical analysis). Also,
>Appendix A of part 23 gives some simplified formulas for compliance on
>conventional light aircraft under 6,000#, which the RV-10 definitly
>fits within. Speeds to be used for the V-n diagram are given based on
>w/s and load factor. A minimum Vd can be calculated as 24 * sqrt(n1
>*(w/s)) in kts. This is 199.83 kts and 230 mph plugging in 3.8g for n1
>and the Van's gross w/s.
> Bottom line is the Feds want you to show that your airframe is free
>from flutter up to a certain speed based on w/s and load factor. You
>can test for higher speeds if you wish, but a conservative approach is
>to keep the speed close to the required minimum.
>
>Kevin Hovis.
>
>
>On 3/27/07, John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
> > I waste too much time now on eight other dissimilar sites, but I can
> > surmise the discussion must be interesting.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ken Scott rehashed his ole RVator article to get into Kitplanes as a
> > contributing author. Few readers have noticed that Ken and VANS is
> > deeply concerned (more than any other kit company) on Flutter. With
> > 5,000 flying... they should know. Let's see 71 out of 5000, that is
> > less than 2% and our RV-10s are considerably heavier, more powerful with
> > more useful load. I conclude they are a different cat all together. Is
> > Ken warning us of a design flaw(s)? Could it be weight reduction issues
> > based on a reduced rib count, thin skin or flimsy design? I think not.
> > but Chicken Little sure has me looking to the sky for falling parts.
> > Most RV-10 Builders would rather give up an arm than stop drinking the
> > Kool aid and research such a possibility.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am pursuing with several Aeronautical Engineers who write regular
> > stories, what things can be improved on the RV-10 to reduce the risk of
> > Flutter and allow greater actual (IAS at the service ceiling) airspeeds
> > like many other kit built aircraft. I still don't know how we did it in
> > WWII with fabric covered control surfaces. I understand clearly that the
> > Lurkers are now scurrying to VAN to report such blasphemy but I was
> > reflecting that just this morning - In the last three years, little has
> > been done to improve the written instructions, address the known issues
> > brought by this group and any indication that the existing product could
> > ever be improved upon. I think VAN needs a panel of builders who have
> > built and now fly the 10 to guide such an improvement process.
> > Re-reading about flutter just get's my heart jumping like a butterfly.
> >
> >
> >
> > All of the benefits I have seen have been through open minds, open
> > discussion, sharing of build techniques and those willing to stick their
> > necks out to improve the final quality of a Great kit - the RV-10. How
> > many have recently viewed Dan's site for total accidents and studied the
> > NTSB reports on those that were fatals? It is a sick thought... just
> > like Flutter and just a valuable.
> >
> >
> >
> > I for one declare the Kitplane article - clear propaganda and challenge
> > the other kit component manufacturers sitting on VANS 51% Rewrite
> > Committee to fess up they are placing their owners at risk with speeds
> > greater than our beloved RV-10s. They don't have 5,000 flying, they
> > don't discuss flutter and they should as well. With the understanding
> > can come an increase in design improvement with speed, altitude and
> > economy to boot. It sure got attention though.
> >
> >
> >
> > Could I have another glass, please? I'll go back to reading the
> > instructions or taking a long nap now.
> >
> >
> >
> > John C.
> >
> >
> >
> > PS - John, no one has placed a price on that cheap Beech of Tom's, so if
> > you are interested, I have a 50% interest in a Beech A-36 to get you
> > through the build process at Lenhardt's Airpark.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:28 AM
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RV10-List: Flutter at altitude
> >
> >
> >
> > Most of you are probably watching the TAS / IAS flutter thread on the
> > generic RV Matronics site. Some of you have already weighed in. My
> > question for RV-10 flyers, has anyone come up with a "at altitude IAS
> > speed limitation" chart? Is anyone thinking about such? In essence,
> > IAS Vne for 10k, 12k, 14k, 16k, 18k?
> >
> >
> >
> > John (how in the heck did you guys rivet the spar to the trim tabs)
> > Jessen
> >
> > #40328
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>Get your own web address.
>http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Wing Root Connectors |
Niko,
Just in case you didn't realize it you can use the series 1 for multiple
size pins. I used one connector for lights, pitot and servos and a 4 pin
Molex for the strobe (ran the wiring separated from the rest).
John Testement
HYPERLINK "mailto:jwt@roadmapscoaching.com"jwt@roadmapscoaching.com
40321
Richmond, VA
Paint prep and LOTS of misc stuff
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Niko
I am going to use the Series 2 for the autopilot servo and Series 1 for
the
Lights etc as you mention. Thanks for the info.
Niko
40188
do not archive
----- Original Message ----
From: Jesse Saint HYPERLINK
"mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com"jesse@saintaviation.com
The one that Stein sells for $31 or so. It seems to work great with the
open pins, which Series 1 CPC=92s are. If you are going to have all
small
wires, then going with Series 2 is =93better=94 because they have barrel
pins,
but then you have to do something else with your strobes, landing
lights,
pitot heat, etc, so you are really stuck with the Series 1 for the wing
root. Stein sells it as a crimper for Molex type pins, which the
CPC=92s look
like, but are better. Also, there are 3-4 different qualify of CPC pins
and
I get the best or second best of two sizes, 18-16 and 24-20. The pins
are
the most expensive part of the system (and arguably by far the most
important).
Jesse Saint
--
3/27/2007
4:38 PM
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Got any photo?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:58 PM
As for painting the interior, just want to let you all know that I painted
my interior with Zolatone using two different colors and the results were
quite nice. The tunnel cover, the aft wall and the roof will be a different
color than the rest.
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'll shot some off from the office tomorrow. I have dial up here at
home...no other options other than satallite. My best buddy's parents who
live in a small mountain town outside of Beruit, Lebanon have high speed and
I can't get it here in the Santa Monica mountains outside of Los Angeles.
JOhn G.
>From: "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Interior paint!
>Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:09:29 -0400
>
>
>Got any photo?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:58 PM
>
>
>As for painting the interior, just want to let you all know that I painted
>my interior with Zolatone using two different colors and the results were
>quite nice. The tunnel cover, the aft wall and the roof will be a different
>color than the rest.
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
My QB wings and fuse are due to arrive next Tuesday. Does anyone have a
good picture of the QB wings as they are when delivered? I want to
build a wing cradle. I have looked at the pics on Tim's site and
others, but I would still like to see what I will be dealing with.
Dave Leikam
40496
Do not archive
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|